Law Summary

XI. MARYLAND UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORTFEASORS ACT, MARYLAND COURTS &
      JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CODE ANNOTATED § 3-1401 ET SEQ.

1. Generally:
   
   Issues arising when two or more wrongdoers act concurrently to harm a plaintiff.
   
   

   Example: Two motorists (A and B) negligently drive into an intersection without observing each other and a collision results. A's passenger (C) is injured.

   Under Maryland law both A and B are jointly and severally liable for all of C's damages. The rule of joint and several liability states that when two or more persons unite in an act that causes a single injury to another there is a joint tort for which each wrongdoer must bear responsibility.
   
   
   1. May the injured party sue only one of the two wrongdoers and obtain a full recovery from that individual? Yes. In such a case the defendant who believes another has a joint responsibility for the alleged wrong may seek to enforce that claim by bringing a third-party action against the other pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-332.
      
      
   2. Does Maryland law provide a right of contribution among joint tortfeasors? Yes. Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 3-1402(a).
      
      
   3. What are joint tortfeasors? Maryland law defines joint tortfeasors as "two or more persons, jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury... whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them." Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 3-1401(c).
      
      
   4. Do the plaintiff's allegations alone make one a joint tortfeasor? No. Under Maryland law one becomes a joint tortfeasor only if (a) he agrees that he is so under the terms of a written agreement such as a release, or (b) if he, along with one or more others, is found to have been negligent, by either judge or jury, with such negligence being a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Stated another way, those who have been judicially determined to be liable to a plaintiff for a single harm are joint tortfeasors as a matter of law. See generally Jacobs v. Flynn, 131 Md.App. 342, 749 A.2d 174 (2000); Montgomery County v. Valk, 317 Md. 185, 562 A.2d 1246 (1989) and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Garrett, 343 Md. 500, 682 A.2d 1143 (1986).
      
      
   5. How is the right of contribution enforced? In Maryland, the right of contribution is enforced in one of two ways. First, in the example given above, if C sues A and B, A and/or B may assert a cross-claim for contribution against the other pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-331. If C sues only A, then A may bring B into the action by way of a third-party claim for contribution pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-332. In either event the right of contribution arises only if A and/or B are determined to be joint tortfeasors. Second, the joint tortfeasor who has paid more than his pro rata share of a judgment may enforce his right of contribution by making a post-trial motion for Judgment of Contribution or Recovery Over pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-614 even if he did not file a cross-claim against his joint tortfeasors. Lerman v. Heemann, 347 Md. 439, 701 A.2d 426 (1997).
      
      

      Example: Using the factual scenario outlined above, assume C sues A and B and both A and B are judicially determined to be liable to C. If for strategic reasons A decides to pay the entire judgment to C, A may then file a post-trial motion pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-614 and obtain a judgment of contribution against B for B's pro rata share (in this example, 50%) even though A did not file a cross-claim against B. NOTE: Maryland Rule 2-614 applies only where (1) the moving party has paid the entire judgment or more than his pro rata share and (2) the moving party has a right of contribution (because his co-defendant has also been found liable to the plaintiff and thus is a joint tortfeasor).

   6. Does the application of Maryland Rule 2-614 mean that cross-claims against co-defendants are unnecessary? No. Cross-claims may serve any number of strategic purposes not the least of which is the avoidance of a co-defendant's premature exit from the suit by way of a settlement that does not identify the co-defendant as a joint tortfeasor. Again using the above-referenced facts as an example, assume B settles with C and the release does not identify B as a joint tortfeasor. Assume further that A did not file a cross-claim against B. Under this scenario A has no means of reducing the judgment against him by either the amount of consideration paid by the release or the pro rata share. This is so because B has not agreed to joint tortfeasor status nor has he been judicially determined to be a joint tortfeasor. A's only remedy is to bring a separate action for contribution against B after C has obtained a judgment against him. Such a practice, though legally possible, is nonetheless, wasteful of time and resources.
      
      
   7. What is the effect of an injured party's release of one joint tortfeasor on her claims against other joint tortfeasors? Under Maryland law, the release of one joint tortfeasor does not discharge the remaining tortfeasors unless, of course, the release provides so. Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 3-1404. Rather, the release reduces the plaintiff's claim against the remaining tortfeasors by either (1) the amount of the consideration paid for the release or (2) any amount or proportion provided in the release if greater than the consideration paid. Note, however, that these reductions are made only if the released party agrees through the terms of the release that he is a joint tortfeasor or he is otherwise judicially determined to be so. See generally Hollingsworth v. Connor, 136 Md. App. 91, 764 A.2d 318 (2000); Jones v. Hurst, 54 Md.App. 607, 459 A.2d 219 (1983) and C&K Lord, Inc. v. Carter, 74 Md.App. 68, 536 A.2d 699 (1988).
      
      
   8. May a settling defendant draft a release in such a way as to protect himself against claims of contribution? Yes. Even if the settling party continues to deny liability and states so in the release itself, he may protect himself by including language in the release which nonetheless identifies him as a joint tortfeasor. Jones v. Hearst, 54 Md.App. 607, 459 A.2d 219 (1983); Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 3-1405.