Hashmi v. Bennett
416 Md. 707
| Md. | 2010Background
- Bennett survival and wrongful death suit vs Good Samaritan Hospital, Hashmi, and Kostrubiak; hospital release executed with Good Samaritan Hospital releasing its employee defendants; Hashmi did not settle and was tried; Good Samaritan Release defined Released Party broadly but excepted Hashmi; post-trial request sought to expand joint tortfeasor liability to three non-parties (Sahi, Bosse, Nurse A) via contribution; the trial court reduced verdict under noneconomic cap and reallocated shares to Hashmi; appellate court affirmed limitations on post-judgment determinations against non-parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Good Samaritan Release unambiguously cover hospital employees as joint tortfeasors? | Hashmi argues ambiguity in Release language. | Bennetts contend Release names hospital as joint tortfeasor. | Release unambiguous: hospital is the joint tortfeasor. |
| Can a post-judgment judicial determination assign joint tortfeasor status to nonparties to reduce Hashmi's shares? | Hashmi seeks post-judgment determination against Sahi, Bosse, Nurse A. | Nonparties cannot be adjudicated joint tortfeasors absent joinder. | Impermissible; only parties may be joint tortfeasors. |
| May Hashmi pursue contribution against nonparties under the Act after settlement? | Hashmi seeks extra shares via contribution against nonparties. | Release did not create liability for nonparties in this posture. | Not allowed; no joinder or trial against nonparties. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the release provisions under the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act? | Hashmi asserts ambiguity and broader application. | Release treats hospital as a single joint tortfeasor with others. | Court construes Release to treat hospital as one joint tortfeasor; no separate shares for nonparties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (Md. 1992) (only party to case may be deemed a joint tort-feasor)
- Porter Hayden Co. v. Bullinger, 350 Md. 452 (Md. 1998) (pretrial cross-claims and contribution uncertainties)
- Lerman v. Heeman, 347 Md. 439 (Md. 1997) (final judgment and contributions considerations)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett, 343 Md. 500 (Md. 1996) (contribution limitations with settling defendants)
- Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177 (D.C. 1990) (post-settlement contribution efficiency and joinder implications)