Taylor v. Fishkind
207 Md. App. 121
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Jazminn E. Taylor sued four defendants (initially including HABC) for injuries allegedly from lead paint at two Baltimore properties: 2320 Riggs Ave (HABC as owner) and 1025 N. Carrollton Ave (Fishkind and Lichter as owners).
- She asserted one negligence claim for failure to remove lead paint and one statutory unfair trade practices claim under Md. Code (Commercial Law) §13-303 against each defendant.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Carrollton defendants on the basis that Jazminn’s medical causation expert, Dr. Merrick, lacked a sufficient factual basis to prove exposure at 1025 N. Carrollton Ave.
- Jazminn appealed, challenging the exclusion of Dr. Merrick’s testimony and the grant of summary judgment.
- The record shows Dr. Merrick admitted uncertainty about Jazminn’s blood lead level before moving to 1025 N. Carrollton Ave and could not rule out other lead sources, leading to the court’s admissibility ruling.
- Ultimately the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s exclusion of Dr. Merrick’s testimony and the summary judgment in favor of the Carrollton defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly excluded Dr. Merrick’s testimony for insufficient factual basis | Taylor contends circumstantial evidence suffices to raise a triable issue | Fishkind/Lichter argue lack of sufficient factual basis; Merrick could not prove exposure at 1025 Carrollton | Yes; exclusion upheld |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without Merrick’s causation testimony | Taylor argues circumstantial evidence supports exposure at 1025 Carrollton | Defendants rely on Merrick’s exclusion; no admissible causation witness | Yes; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the court improperly used credibility determinations to negate causation | Circuit court relied on credibility; judge should not reassess expert causation | Court’s decision grounded in record facts, not credibility of Merrick | No reversible error; no improper credibility ruling |
| Whether evidence could establish exposure at 1025 N. Carrollton Ave given lack of interior testing | Age of house, exterior lead, and mother’s testimony create basis for exposure | Exterior lead alone and lack of interior testing do not prove exposure | Insufficient evidence to prove exposure at 1025 Carrollton |
| Whether Jazminn had standing to pursue unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act | Jazminn as third-party beneficiary consumer with standing | Plaintiff not party to lease; lack of standing | Not necessary to resolve; the court affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow v. L & R Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 67 (Md. App. 2002) (lead-paint circumstantial evidence standards; no presumptive interior paint conclusion from exterior)
- Davis v. Goodman, 117 Md.App. 378 (Md. App. 1997) (summary-judgment limits; cannot rely on credibility findings in deciding causation)
- Ford v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 848 A.2d 1038 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (foreign Commonwealth case cited for causation sufficiency foliage)
- Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, 152 Md.App. 166 (Md. App. 2003) (admissibility of expert testimony requires adequate factual basis)
- Terumo Med. Corp. v. Greenway, 171 Md.App. 617 (Md. App. 2006) (expert testimony must be based on sufficient data)
- Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 335 Md. 58 (Md. 1994) (negligence elements; causation must be substantial factor)