Smith v. Rowhouses, Inc.
223 Md. App. 658
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Smith sued Rowhouses, Inc. for negligent lead exposure from a pre-1950 Oliver Street Property managed by RI.
- Oliver Street Property showed peeling/chipping interior paint; Smith lived there as an infant/child and had hand-to-mouth contact.
- Monroe Street Property preceded Oliver Street and was in good condition; Ashland Avenue Property lacked lead paint issues.
- Plaintiff relied on expert Dr. Simon, who tied exposure to pre-1950 age and deteriorated paint; his testimony rested on age-based presumption.
- Circuit Court granted RI summary judgment, ruling Dr. Simon’s basis insufficient; Smith appealed seeking reversal and remand.
- Appellate court reverses, holds admissible circumstantial evidence may support causation under Dow/Kirson, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Simon’s opinion had a proper factual foundation | Smith: Dr. Simon’s age-based presumption supports presence of lead paint | RI: Age-based presumption is inadequate without property-specific proof | No admissible basis from age alone; Dr. Simon's testimony insufficient |
| Whether circumstantial evidence supports causation under Dow/Kirson | Smith: Circumstantial facts allow inference of Oliver Street as sole lead source | RI: Circumstantial evidence does not establish lead presence or substantial contribution | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit inference under Dow/Kirson; remand for proceedings |
| What is the proper standard of review for summary-judgment rulings in this lead-paint case | Smith: Review de novo for factual disputes and admissibility | RI: Standard remains traditional summary-judgment scrutiny | Appellate court applies de novo review for summary judgments in light of admissibility and material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow v. L&R Properties, Inc., 144 Md. App. 67 (Md. Ct. App. 2002) (circumstantial evidence can show lead-paint presence when prior facts support inference)
- Kirson v. State, 439 Md. 501 (Md. 2014) (establishes Dow method and requires ruling out other sources of exposure)
- Hamilton v. Dackman, 213 Md. App. 589 (Md. Ct. App. 2013) (mere pre-1950 age does not prove lead-based paint in a specific property)
- Davis v. Goodman, 117 Md. App. 378 (Md. Ct. App. 1997) (pre-1950 condition discussed in context of lead paint presence)