Smith v. Rowhouses, Inc.
August 5, 2020
Plaintiff, Myishia L. Smith, filed suit against Defendant, Rowhouses, Inc., for negligence, alleging that she suffered injuries as a result of ingesting lead-based paint inside a property managed by the Defendant. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The trial court had stated that no causation was found in Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff appealed and on appeal the Court reversed the trial court’s holding; the reviewing court held that circumstantial evidence, including but not limited to, the fact that the Plaintiff spent the majority of the time at the property, which contained peeling, chipping, and flaking interior paint, and that other properties that the Plaintiff lived in and visited did not have peeling, chipping or flaking interior paint, could support a reasonable inference that the property was the only “reasonably probable source of the lead” to which the Plaintiff was exposed. Therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of the Defendant.
Smith v. Rowhouses, Inc., No. 993 (Md. Ct. Spec. Appeals, July 2, 2015