In Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, No. 24-C-11-006715 (Md. Mar. 25, 2016), the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed a trial court decision granting summary judgment for the defendant property owner in a case alleging plaintiff had been injured by exposure to lead paint as a child while living in defendant’s house.  Because defendant’s house had been destroyed before the lawsuit was filed without being tested for lead, there was no direct evidence that plaintiff had been exposed to lead in that house.  Nevertheless, the plaintiff’s mother submitted an affidavit noting that the paint in that house was chipped and degrading, a condition not present at houses in which plaintiff’s family had lived before or after.  Plaintiff also adduced the testimony of an expert who opined that the house in question had contained lead paint based on the age of the house and limited information concerning the exterior paint of the house.  The Court of Appeals held that this evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment and raised a question of fact for resolution at trial.  To survive summary judgment, plaintiff needed only show that defendant’s property was “a reasonable probable source of [plaintiff’s] lead exposure,” i.e., that it was “more than a mere ‘possibility’” but “less than ‘more likely than not’” that the house in question had been the source of plaintiff’s exposure to lead.  Consequently, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.