HB Litigation Conferences Lead Litigation 2013

1. Lead Litigation Conference 2013
November 14-15, 2013
Maryland Evidence Update
I. HOT OFF THE PRESS
Court of Appeals
Expert Testimony
Ross v. Housing Auth. Of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013)
Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137, 70 A.3d 328 (2013)
Little v. Schneider, 434 Md. 150, 73 A.3d 1074 (2013)
Chesson v. Mont. Mutual Ins. Co., ___ Md. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2013)
Circumstantial Evidence
Ross v. Housing Auth. Of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 63 A.3d 1 (2013)
Court of Special Appeals
Circumstantial Evidence
Taylor v. Fishkind, 207 Md.App. 121, 51 A.3d 743 (2012)
Hamilton v. Dackman, ___ Md. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2013)
II. ON THE HORIZON
Court of Appeals
Hamilton v. Kirson, et ux., ___ Md. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (201__)
(Cert. granted 8/14/13; Case No. 78, September Term, 2013) Issues:
(1) Did the trial court err by refusing to allow plaintiff’s expert
witnesses to testify that the defendant’s property was a substantial contributing
cause to plaintiff’s injurious lead exposure on the grounds that they did not
sufficiently rule out other potential sources of lead exposure?
(2) Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for defendant
on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to causation?
(3) Is a Dow analysis applicable to a lead paint claim involving
possible exposure at multiple properties?

2. Alston, et al. v. 2700 Virginia Avenue Associates, et al. , ___ Md. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (201__)
(Cert. granted 10/18/13; Case No. 100, September Term, 2013) Issues:
(1) By following its decision in West v. Rochkind, 212 Md.App. 164, 66
A.3d 1145 (2013), did CSA improperly undermine the common law principle that
the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence and that no greater degree of certainty is required of
circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence?
(2) Did CSA’s decision in West improperly change a Plaintiff’s burden of
proof in a circumstantial evidence case from “preponderance of the evidence” to
greater than “beyond a reasonable doubt?”
(3) Does CSA’s holding improperly require a Plaintiff in a lead-paint case
to prove that a given property was “the only possible explanation” for a Plaintiff’s
injuries in order to make a circumstantial case?
Prepared by:
Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. (Ret’d)
Silverman/Thompson/Slutkin/White/LLC
201 N. Charles Street, 26th floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
410.385.2225
josephmurphy@mdattorney.com
Brian S. Brown, Esquire
Saul E. Kerpelman & Associates, P.A.
10 N. Calvert Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21202
410.547.0202
brian@kerpelman.com