 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lerman v. Heemann11/29/1996
ment discharged the common liability or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof. ...
Maryland Rule 2-614 provides:
Judgment of Contribution or Recovery Over
If in a single action a judgment is entered jointly against more than one defendant, the court upon motion may enter an appropriate judgment for one of the defendants against another defendant if (a) the moving defendant has discharged the judgment by payment or has paid more than a pro rata share of the judgment and (b) the moving defendant has a right to contribution or to recovery over from the other defendant.
Dr. Lerman stresses that a court can only grant a motion for contribution under Maryland Rule 2-614(b) if the movant has a right of contribution. He posits that Dr. Heemann did not acquire such a right because he failed to file a cross-claim for contribution. We reject this view and hold that no cross-claim is necessary. Dr. Heemann's right to contribution is derived from section 17(a) of the Uniform Act. Maryland Rule 2-614 provides the mechanism under which the rights granted by the Uniform Act are enforced. Dr. Heemann proved both prerequisites for the application of Rule 2-614. First, the jury verdict established that he and Dr. Lerman shared a common liability to the plaintiffs in the underlying tort action. Therefore, the two were "joint tortfeasors" within the meaning of the Uniform Act. Second, Dr. Heemann proved that he paid more than his pro-rata share of the common obligation.
Paul V. Niemeyer & Linda M. Scheutt, in Maryland Rules Commentary 475 (2d ed. 1992), accurately explain the history, purpose, and effect of Maryland Rule 2-614:
This rule continues the substances of former Rule 605d with stylistic changes only. It is a rule of convenience that permits one defendant who has paid more than a pro-rata share of a judgment to obtain judgment against another defendant who was held jointly liable. For example, if two defendants, A and B, are joint tortfeasors responsible for the plaintiff's damages, and defendant A pays more than half of the judgment, defendant A may obtain a judgment against defendant B for defendant B's pro-rata share of the judgment paid by defendant A. Although initiation of a separate action by defendant A against defendant B is an alternative method of proceeding, defendant A may avoid a separate lawsuit by filing a motion for judgment in the original action.
Contents of motion.
A motion for judgment filed under this rule is governed by Rule 2-311. It is granted on the findings of the court or the jury with respect to the joint liability of the parties. The only new fact to be shown is that defendant A paid more than a pro-rata share of the judgment. Complete satisfaction of the judgment is not required. The defendant may make this showing by affidavit, as required by Rule 2-311(d). The defendant must also show, as a matter of law, the right to contribution or recovery over against another. For example, the Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act, Article 50, ยง 17 of the Maryland Code, gives this right to one joint tortfeasor against another.
(Emphasis added.)
Dr. Lerman argues:
Had appellee filed a cross-claim against appellant, the jury's verdict in the underlying action against both doctors could form the basis for a motion pursuant to Rule 2-614. Where, as here, however, appellee had only a potential, unasserted and unperfected right of recovery against appellant because appellee failed to file a cross-claim, Rule 2-614, by its very terms, is not available.
Dr. Lerman further maintains:
The trial court's decision blurs the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|