Maryland evidence update judge murphy brian brown hb lead-conf

304 views

Published on

HB Litigation Conferences Lead Litigation 2013

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
304
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Maryland evidence update judge murphy brian brown hb lead-conf

  1. 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. 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

×