baxte054 - NOTICE This opinion is subject to motions for...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: [email protected] Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Merrimack No. 2007-102 SHELBY BAXTER, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PATRICIA BAXTER v. a . Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: May 20, 2008 Seufert Professional Association , of Franklin (Christopher J. Seufert on , of Boston, Massachusetts (Neil T. Leifer and Andrew S. Wainwright on the brief, and Mr. Leifer orally), for the plaintiff. , of Manchester (Gary M. Burt and Doreen F. Connor on the brief, and Mr. Burt orally), for the defendants. , of Manchester (Francis G. Murphy on the brief and orally), for the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, as amicus curiae . DUGGAN, J. The minor plaintiff, Shelby Baxter, by and through her mother and next friend, Patricia Baxter, appeals the exclusion by the Trial Court (Hollman , J.) of two expert witnesses in her negligence action against the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
defendants, Charles and Kelly Temple. The exclusion of these witnesses resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. I. Factual and Procedural Background The record supports the following relevant facts. Between May 11, 1995, and May 11, 1996, the plaintiff and her parents resided in an apartment in Concord that they rented from the defendants. In early September 1995, the plaintiff, who was almost fourteen months old at the time, was tested for lead paint poisoning. The test results revealed an elevated blood lead level of thirty- six micrograms per deciliter. On September 26, 1995, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services investigated the premises and found substantial evidence of lead paint contamination. The plaintiff subsequently filed this action, alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to warn her of the presence and dangers of the lead paint. She contended that her exposure to and ingestion of the high levels of lead paint present in the apartment caused her to suffer from “lead paint poisoning and the effects thereof including but not limited to: reduced life expectancy, brain damage, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of expected earnings capacity . . . .” To prove her case, the plaintiff designated three expert witnesses: (1) Barbara Bruno-Golden, Ed.D., a neuropsychologist who evaluated the plaintiff
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 34

baxte054 - NOTICE This opinion is subject to motions for...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online