Rowhouses v. Smith: Maryland's High Court Keeps Circumstantial-Evidence Lead Paint Cases Alive
For thousands of Baltimore children poisoned by lead paint in aging rental housing, the hardest part of the case has never been proving the harm — lowered IQ, learning disabilities, lost potential, all painstakingly documented. The hardest part is proving where the lead came from, decades later, when the houses have been repainted, gutted, or demolished and the records are long gone. Late last month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland handed those children a lifeline.
The decision
In Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 446 Md. 611, 133 A.3d 1054 (decided March 25, 2016), the Court of Appeals — in an opinion by Judge Watts — clarified how much circumstantial evidence a lead-paint plaintiff needs to show that a defendant's property was a source of her childhood lead exposure. The plaintiff had no direct proof (no contemporaneous lead test of the specific home), only circumstantial evidence that the defendant's rowhouse was a "reasonable probable source" of her exposure. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the landlord; the Court of Appeals reversed.
The key holding: to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence need only rule out other reasonably probable sources of her lead exposure — not every conceivable source. Demanding that a child disprove every theoretical alternative — every visited relative's home, every playground, every imaginable trace of lead in her environment — would set an impossible standard that has nothing to do with how juries actually weigh evidence.
Why the bar had gotten so high
Two years ago, in Hamilton v. Kirson (2014), the Court of Appeals tightened the rules for circumstantial proof of source causation in lead cases, and defense lawyers had been swinging that decision at nearly every lead plaintiff since — arguing that without direct testing of the property, cases should die on summary judgment. Rowhouses meaningfully lowers that bar. The circumstantial path remains demanding, but it is real: a plaintiff can build source causation from the age of the housing, the child's residence and visit history, blood-lead levels rising during the tenancy, the condition of the paint, and expert testimony — and then let a jury decide.
| Defense position rejected | Rule after Rowhouses | |
|---|---|---|
| What must the plaintiff rule out? | Every conceivable alternative source of lead | Only other reasonably probable sources |
| Is direct testing of the property required? | Effectively yes | No — circumstantial evidence can suffice |
| Who weighs a properly supported circumstantial case? | The judge, on summary judgment | The jury |
Why this matters
Lead poisoning is not a historical footnote in Maryland; it is a present-tense epidemic with a decades-long tail. Children exposed in the 1990s and 2000s are only now, as young adults, seeing the full extent of what lead took from them — and by the time they sue, the physical evidence has often vanished through no fault of theirs. The landlords' preferred rule would have rewarded the disappearance of evidence: repaint, demolish, wait, win. Rowhouses refuses to let the passage of time immunize the people who profited from poisoned housing.
What this means for injured people in Maryland
If you or your child had elevated blood-lead levels while living in — or regularly visiting — older Maryland rental housing, this decision matters to you. It means:
- No direct lead test of the property is required to bring a claim. Circumstantial evidence, properly assembled, can carry the case to a jury.
- The history matters. Where the child lived and when, what condition the paint was in, when blood-lead levels rose — these become the building blocks of causation.
- Deadlines still apply. Lead cases involve minors and complicated accrual rules, but nothing is gained by waiting. Records and witnesses only get harder to find.
- Start assembling the history now. The building blocks of a circumstantial case are ordinary family records: leases and addresses with dates, pediatric records showing blood-lead results over time, photographs of the properties, names of relatives and babysitters whose homes the child spent time in (so those alternatives can be investigated and, where appropriate, ruled out), and any housing-code violation notices or complaints to the landlord about chipping and flaking paint. Parents and grandparents are often the only remaining witnesses to what a rowhouse looked like twenty years ago; their memories should be captured while they are sharp.
These cases are document-intensive, expert-intensive, and hard-fought — the defense bar did not stop fighting source causation on March 25 — but Rowhouses confirms that hard is not the same as impossible.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.
Update: Rowhouses remains the governing framework for circumstantial source proof in Maryland lead-paint cases. For later developments, see our coverage of Dackman v. Robinson and Rochkind v. Stevenson.