Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-416, the deposition of ARC's President, Shannon Cavalier, was videotaped and stenographically recorded.
#De bene esse deposition trial#
On June 2, 2006, appellant's counsel took the de bene esse deposition for use at trial of appellant's expert who was the representative of the firm that tested the property for lead. The present suit was filed on August 29, 2002. The test results indicated that the property contained lead. On May 26, 1999, at the request of appellant's counsel, representatives of ARC Environmental (“ARC”) tested the subject property for the presence of lead. As a consequence, the appellees had no knowledge of what, if any, painting and repairs were performed at the subject property after October 11, 1995. The appellees sold the property in 1995, and since that time, none of the appellees has owned any interest in the property. Queen moved to another address in Baltimore City.Īppellee Daniel Realty Company owned the subject property from 1984 until October 11, 1995, and appellees Daniel Perlberg and Wendy Perlberg, among others, acted as property managers of the subject property. Brown lived at the subject property until 1994, when she and Ms. Brown's family began their tenancy no later than January 3, 1991, at which time Ms. Brown resided at 3630 Reisterstown Road, the appellees concede that Ms. Although the parties disputed the exact dates when Ms. Brown as her defacto mother since the child's birth. Queen is Lanay Brown's biological aunt and legal guardian, and Ms. Lanay Brown was born on December 17, 1990. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Queen's personal claims had been disposed of by the appellees' motion for judgment such that she was no longer an individual plaintiff. Brown contends that the trial court committed reversible errors when it: (1) allowed appellees' counsel to read the transcript of the de bene esse deposition of one of the plaintiffs' experts to the jury rather than playing the videotape of the deposition (2) admitted an unredacted copy of a test report that had been prepared by an expert for the plaintiff and (3) allowed the appellees to read into evidence portions of Ms. Based upon that dispositive finding of fact, the court entered judgment for the appellees. At the conclusion of all evidence, the case was submitted to the jury on issues, and the jury found there was no flaking, chipping, or peeling paint at the subject property while Ms. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the court granted the defendants' unopposed motion for judgment as to Ms. Brown's legal guardian and for severe emotional distress and mental anguish that Ms. Queen also sought damages on her own behalf for medical expenses that she incurred as Ms. Brown suffered permanent brain damage because of her exposure to the lead-based paint, and Ms.
The plaintiffs claimed that, because of the defendants' negligence, the property contained flaking, chipping, and peeling lead-based paint during the time Ms. Brown resided for approximately four years. Appellant-Lanay Brown, through her legal guardian and next friend Catherlina Queen-and Catherlina Queen, individually, were unsuccessful in persuading a jury that the appellees-Daniel Realty Company, Wendy Perlberg, Daniel Perlberg, and Marvin Perlberg-negligently maintained a house at 3630 Reisterstown Road in Baltimore City, where Ms. This appeal seeks reversal of a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that was entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a case seeking damages for lead paint exposure. Cullen, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, on brief), Baltimore, for appellee. Kerpelman & Associates, P.A., on brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
0 kommentar(er)
