In a case that may make it easier to prove causation in Maryland lead paint cases, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that neither direct evidence of the source of lead nor expert testimony was necessary when a trier of fact had sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude that the subject property was the “reasonable probable” source of lead exposure. See Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 133 A.3d 1054 (Md. 2016) -

Plaintiff brought suit against the owners of two rental properties she had lived in as a small child in the early 1990s, alleging that lead paint exposure at those properties caused permanent neurological deficits. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment, citing a lack of direct evidence of lead paint at the subject property, which had since been demolished, and inability of Plaintiff’s expert to rule out other potential sources of lead exposure. This, the trial court ruled, left Plaintiff unable to prove causation.