Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

MAURICE HAWKINS v. DAVID M. HARRIS, ET AL.

Torts — Lead-paint exposure — Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence

Following a hearing, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted a motion for summary judgment filed by, among others, David M. Harris and Four Partners #1, LLC, (collectively, “the appellees”), in litigation stemming from appellant Maurice Hawkins’s alleged exposure to lead-based paint at 2332 Etting Street, property owned or managed by appellees.

After resolution of the remaining issues in the circuit court, appellant noted this appeal and raises one question, which we have rephrased: Did the circuit court err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment?

Read the opinion here: