West v. Rochkind
212 Md. App. 164
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Lead paint poisoning case; no lead paint testing conducted at 1814 Lorman Street, the alleged exposure site.
- Dominique West’s residence history is uncertain; he spent time at multiple addresses during birth to age seven.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for NBS, Inc. and Rochkind, finding no prima facie case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Dominique argued Dow v. L&R Properties supports circumstantial proof of exposure despite no direct testing.
- Judge Fletcher-Hill contrasted Dow’s exclusive-source premise with Dominique’s mixed residence history, deeming Dow inapplicable.
- Court emphasized that Dow requires exclusivity of the source to infer lead paint presence at a site; Dominique failed to show that 1814 Lorman Street was the sole source.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does exclusivity of the source apply to Dow-based circumstantial proof? | West contends Dow allows circumstantial proof without exclusive source proof. | Rochkind/NBS argue Dow’s exclusivity requirement must be established. | Dow exclusivity required; not satisfied here. |
| May process of elimination establish a premise of lead paint at 1814 Lorman Street when multiple residences were possible sources? | West claims 1814 Lorman Street was a cause among others, not the exclusive source. | Defendants require exclusive source for premise of lead paint at a site. | Exclusivity required; premise not established; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow v. L&R Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 67 (Md. App. 2002) (exclusive source to infer lead paint at a site; no direct proof needed)
- Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md.App. 121 (Md. App. 2012) (rejected Dow-based theory where other sources could not be ruled out)
- Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648 (Md. 2013) (discusses causation standards in lead paint cases)