Horton v. City Homes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 0546,0546 |
| Parties | CHANEL HORTON v. CITY HOMES, INC. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-17-002377
UNREPORTED
Graeff, Nazarian, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
This appeal stems from a complaint filed by Chanel Horton, appellant, against City Homes, Inc. ("City Homes"), appellee, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Appellant alleged that City Homes' negligence resulted in appellant's exposure to lead paint at 3511 Virginia Avenue, Baltimore City, Maryland. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding City Homes not guilty of negligence.
On appeal, appellant presents the following questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Appellant was born on November 2, 1996. Appellant's mother, Lena Horton, testified that she lived with her parents, Geneva and David Horton, at 3511 Virginia Avenue in Baltimore City (the "Property") prior to and after appellant was born. City Homes owned the Property during all times relevant to this case. Appellant no longer lives at the Property.
On May 1, 2017, appellant filed a complaint against City Homes, alleging, as relevant to this appeal, negligence. Appellant alleged that she lived at the Property from"1996 to approximately 2008," and during that time, she "was exposed to flaking, chipping and peeling lead paint and lead paint dust and was diagnosed" with lead poisoning.
On April 15, 2019, trial before a jury began. Many witnesses testified regarding whether appellant lived at the Property, how long she lived there, whether there was a significant amount of lead at the Property, whether the lead poisoning was caused by another property, and the severity of appellant's injuries. We summarize below testimony pertinent to this appeal.
Barry Mankowitz, an employee of City Homes who managed its day-to-day operations at the time appellant lived at the Property, was called as an adverse witness by appellant. He testified that City Homes purchased the Property on December 30 or 31, 1986.1 When City Homes purchased a new property, it was its custom to take pictures of the Property, inspect it, and make necessary repairs. Mr. Mankowitz agreed that the Property was built before 1950, and therefore, it likely contained lead-based paint. An inspection checklist showed that the Property was inspected in October 1987. Repairs typically were done within two weeks after inspection. The inspection list includes painting. City Homes obtained a work permit to repair and paint the Property. They then used a HEPA vac to clean the dust. Geneva Horton acknowledged that this was done on February 18, 1988.
Mr. Mankowitz testified that, when City Homes purchased the Property, it borrowed money from the Community Development Administration of Maryland ("CDA"). Because it borrowed money from the CDA, the CDA could inspect the Property at any time. Mr. Mankowitz explained that, after City Homes made its list of changes that needed to be made, the CDA also could send an inspector to add or change the list.
When City Homes purchased the Property in 1986, appellant's grandparents were already living there. Because City Homes borrowed money from the CDA, it had to report to them the names of the tenants of the homes. Appellant's name was never listed on City Homes' records as a person who lived on the Property, although another child was listed on a few of the records. Additionally, in the certification of tenant eligibility signed by Geneva and David Horton on February 20, 1999, they were the only occupants listed, and appellant's mother was listed as an emergency contact who did not live at the Property.
Mr. Mankowitz testified that any requests for repairs by tenants were recorded. City Homes performed multiple repairs of the Property, but the file did not reflect any requests for painting.
Lena Horton, appellant's mother, testified that she lived at the Property with her parents, appellant's grandparents, until she was 30 years old. She testified that appellant was born in 1996 and lived at the Property until 1999.2 Appellant learned to sit, crawl, and walk at the Property, and as a child, appellant would put things in her mouth that were onthe floor, including paint chips and things with paint chips on them. Ms. Horton testified that complaints were made to the landlord about the paint chips, but the problem was not fixed the entire time she lived at the Property.
Ms. Horton testified that doctors discovered that appellant had lead in her blood. Appellant had difficulty in school, specifically having problems with focusing, concentrating, and getting angry all the time.
During cross examination, counsel for City Homes questioned Ms. Horton about other ways appellant could have been exposed to lead, and she agreed that appellant played in dirt and her grandfather worked construction. Ms. Horton also agreed that appellant had visited other homes that had chipping paint.
Rush Barnett, an expert in industrial hygiene and lead paint risk assessment, testified on behalf of appellant. He testified that appellant's medical tests showed the following micrograms per deciliter of lead in her blood: in November 1997, a lead level of 9.7; in March 1998, a lead level of 13.5; in August 1998, a lead level of 9; and in June 1999, a lead level of 6. Although there is no "safe" level of lead for a child to have in their blood, the Center for Disease Control considers a level of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher to be a lead hazard.
Mr. Barnett reviewed a lead testing survey report conducted by Arc Environmental (the "Arc Report") in July 2017. It was not allowed access to the second floor, so the testing was done on the first floor and exterior of the Property. Mr. Barnett testified that he had trained people who worked at Arc Environmental, including the person whoprepared the Arc Report for the Property. It was the type of report he regularly would rely on in forming an opinion.
Appellant attempted to enter the Arc Report into evidence, but City Homes objected. The following colloquy occurred:
The court sustained the objection. Counsel then asked to admit only two pages of the report, the data sheet showing "where they found the lead-based paint above the Maryland standard." Counsel for City Homes argued that it was inadmissible, and the court again sustained the objection.
Mr. Barnett then testified that, pursuant to the report, Arc Environmental found "lead-based paint on a number of components that typically contain lead-based paint," such as baseboards, doors, door trims and jams, and window sills and casings. Mr. Barnett believed the data generated was "accurate and valid." He ultimately concluded that the Property did contain lead-based paint, which would have "resulted in lead-based paint hazards existing in the [P]roperty while [appellant] was living there."
Patrick Connor, an expert in lead risk assessment, testified for City Homes. He testified that flaking and chipping lead-based paint is a lead hazard. Intact lead-based painttypically is not a hazard because it is behind layers of non lead-based paint. Lead is also found in soil. There are multiple sources of potential lead exposure.
Mr. Connor reviewed records and reports to determine if they indicated lead-based paint hazards at the Property. They did an assessment of the area in 2018 and found soil lead hazards. They did not find in the records for the Property any references to lead-based paint hazards. And City Homes' repair records did not reference any chipping paint at the Property.
On April 24, 2019, at the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict for City Homes. This appeal followed.
Appellant's contentions on appeal all address the circuit court's decision to admit or exclude evidence. As we have explained:
Determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Hajireen v. State, 203 Md. App. 537, 552, cert. denied, 429 Md. 306 (2012). This Court reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705, 724-25 (2011). A trial court abuses its discretion only when "no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court," or "when the court acts 'without reference to any guiding rules or principles.'" King v. State, 407 Md. 682, 697 (2009) (quoting North v. North, 102 Md. App. 1, 13 (1994)).
Baker v. State, 223 Md. App. 750, 759 (2015) (quoting Donati v. State, 215 Md. App. 686, 708, cert. denied, 438 Md. 143 (2014)).
Appellant's first contention is that the circuit court committed reversible error by allowing Mr. Mankowitz to testify that City Homes was a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. She asserts that...
To continue reading
Request your trial