Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. case brief
summary
782 A.2d 807 (2001)
CASE FACTS
The trial court ruled a corporation conducting a nontherapeutic scientific study of lead paint abatement did not have a duty to warn minor volunteer participants and/or their legal guardians regarding dangers present when the researcher had knowledge of the potential for harm and the subjects were unaware of the danger.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
782 A.2d 807 (2001)
CASE SYNOPSIS
On appeal from summary
judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, the court
considered two separate negligence actions involving children who
allegedly developed elevated levels of lead dust in their blood while
participating in a research study with respondent corporation. Both
cases alleged the children were poisoned, or at least exposed to the
risk of being poisoned, due to negligence on the part of the
corporation.CASE FACTS
The trial court ruled a corporation conducting a nontherapeutic scientific study of lead paint abatement did not have a duty to warn minor volunteer participants and/or their legal guardians regarding dangers present when the researcher had knowledge of the potential for harm and the subjects were unaware of the danger.
DISCUSSION
- The appeals court disagreed.
- Such research programs normally created special relationships and/or could be of a contractual nature, to create duties.
- Breach of such duties could ultimately result in viable negligence actions.
- At the very least, there were viable and genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether a special relationship or other relationships arising out of agreements giving rise to duties existed between the corporation and both sets of appellants.
- Based on the record, no degree of parental consent and no degree of furnished information to the parents could have made the experiment at issue ethically or legally permissible. It was wrong in the first instance.
- The appeals court held the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment