Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc.

The Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI) (Defendant), a prestigious research institute associated with Johns Hopkins University, created a nontherapeutic research program which required particular classes of homes to have only partial lead paint abatement modifications completed. In at least some instances, including this case, the institute arranged for the landlords to receive public funding by way of loans or grants to aid in the modifications. The research institute then encouraged, and sometimes required, that the landlords rent the properties to families with young children. Children were encouraged to live in the houses where the possibility of lead dust was known to the researchers to be likely, so that lead dust content of their blood could be compared with the level of lead dust in the houses at periodic intervals over a period of two years. In order for the study to be complete, the continuing presence of the children was required in the participating houses. The purpose of the research was to determine how effective different degrees of lead paint abatement procedures were. The researchers acknowledged that lead paint was particularly hazardous to children and that lead dust often remained or returned to abated houses over time. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) overseeing this research abandoned its responsibility to review the potential safety and health hazard impact of this nontherapeutic study, and instead advised the institute to recast the study with the purpose of obscuring those dangers. The research study was sponsored jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development. This action against Defendant was brought by parents (Plaintiff) of children with elevated blood levels of lead. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that no contract existed between Defendant and the plaintiffs, and there was inherently no duty owed to a research subject by a researcher. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion. The parents (Plaintiff) of the children in the study appealed, arguing that Defendant owed a duty of care based on the nature of its relationship with the Plaintiffs and the children participating in the study based on a contract between the parties, the voluntary assumption by Defendant, a special relationship between the parties, and federal regulation.