1207 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). In my view, that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s property was a more probable source of his exposure and elevated blood lead levels than the other property(s). Expert Testimony and Causation Under either a Dow or Kirson/Rogers theory of causation, a plaintiff can overcome summary judgment and place the issue of whether the defendant’s property caused the plaintiffs lead exposure and elevated blood lead levels before the trier of fact through a sufficient showing of direct or circumstantial evidence. Dow, 144 Md.App. at 75, 796 A.2d 139; Rogers, 453 Md. at 248, 160 A.3d 1207. The plaintiff is not required, as a matter of law, to have an expert opinion as to causation. See e.g., Ross, 430 Md. at 669, 63 A.3d 1 (<HOLDING>). However, expert opinion may be necessary in
holding that circumstantial evidence may support temporal link between defendants intoxication and his driving holding that the nexus between an asbestos product and plaintiff may be established by direct and circumstantial evidence and that testimony by someone with knowledge relating to the plaintiffs workplace exposure to an asbestoscontaining product is admissible holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence holding that the link between a defendants property and a plaintiffs childhood exposure to lead paint and dust may be established through circumstantial evidence even if expert opinion testimony is not available holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence