The Court of Special Appeal has ruled that circumstantial evidence can establish Plaintiff's exposure to lead paint
In the
Court of Special Appeals of Mayland
, a case of n
egligence and causation is gaining attention.
A woman claims that she suffered injuries as a result of ingesting lead-based paint inside a property managed by defendant, Rowhouses, Inc. (RI). The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the RI on the basis of causation because, although there was no direct evidence to show that there was lead-based paint at the property in question, the plaintiff presented adequate admissible circumstantial evidence that there was lead-based paint in the property to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the property caused plaintiff's elevated blood-lead levels.
There was
sufficient circumstantial evidence
that a house was the only possible source of plaintiff's lead exposure as the plaintiff spent most of her time there, often seen with her hands on areas that had peeling, chipping, and flaking paint and then with her hands in her mouth. The house was built before 1950.
