property owned by the defendant, when other evidence in the record indicated that another property was an equally likely source of the plaintiffs harm. Id. at 268-72, 160 A.3d 1207. In my view, when there are multiple potential sources of a plaintiffs exposure to lead-based paint and elevated blood lead levels, each of which is more than a mere possible source of the harm, and the plaintiff has claimed that only one of them was the source of his harm, the plaintiff must, at a minimum, show that the subject property was a more probable source of that exposure and elevated blood lead levels than the other potential source(s) in order to establish that the subject property was a substantial factor cause of his harm. Id. See also Peterson v. Underwood, 258 Md. 9, 17, 264 A.2d 851 (1970) (<HOLDING>). The Majority in this case asserts that the
holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment recognizing that when a defendants negligence causes bodily injury the plaintiff can recover damages for past present and future medical expenses bodily injury and emotional distress holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error holding that where plaintiff by his own evidence shows two or more equally likely causes of the injury for only one of which defendant is responsible plaintiff can not recover