ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The defendant Anchor Packing Company has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, requesting that certain “attached documents be made part of the total record” in this case and that the Court reconsider in part its decision.
See Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia,
*668 Anchor asserts that the plaintiff Zenobia in fact named Raymark in the original complaint but that the copy of the original complaint included in the record extract omitted one page, namely the page upon which Raymark was named as a defendant. The defendant Anchor has also attached as exhibits to its motion a stipulated cross-claim filed by all of the defendants against all other defendants and a cross-claim for indemnity filed by Anchor against all other “defendants” except Garlock, Inc.
Neither the original complaint in the Zenobia case, nor the stipulation as to cross-claims, nor Anchor’s cross-claims for indemnity were included in the record on appeal transmitted to this Court pursuant to Maryland Rules 8-412 and 8-413. The original complaint, apparently with a page missing, and a portion of the cross-claim stipulation, were included in the record extract under Rule 8-501. These partial documents indicated that Raymark had never been a party in the Zenobia case. Anchor’s proffered cross-claims for indemnity against “all defendants” was not included in the record extract.
The plaintiff Zenobia has not opposed the request to correct the record in this case. Since the exhibits attached to Anchor’s Motion for Reconsideration indicate that the plaintiff Zenobia had named Raymark as a defendant and that Anchor had filed cross-claims for contribution and indemnity against all defendants, including Raymark, we shall pursuant to Rule 8-414 correct the record to include these papers, and we shall proceed on the basis that the cross-claims were filed against Raymark in the Zenobia case. 1
*669 Nevertheless, we shall not modify the judgment vacating the circuit court’s granting of the cross-claims against Raymark in the Zenobia case, and we shall deny Anchor’s Motion for Reconsideration. As in the Dickerson case, the evidence in the Zenobia case was insufficient to show that Raymark was a joint tortfeasor.
At the cross-claims trial the deposition of Theodore Grant, an Anchor employee, was entered into evidence. Grant was asked:
“During the period from the early ’40’s to the late ’60’s what percentage of the asbestos containing products sold by Anchor Packing would you estimate were purchased by Anchor Packing from [Raymark]?”
He responded:
“I’d only be guessing. I’d say maybe fifty percent, but its only conjecture on my part.”
Grant also testified that during this period warnings did not appear on Raymark’s products. At the trial of the Zenobia case, the plaintiff Zenobia testified that during the two year period that he worked at Maryland Shipbuilding and Dry-dock he was exposed to products bearing the label Anchor Packing Co.
Anchor argues, based upon these facts, that the trial court correctly held that (1) Zenobia was exposed to Ray-mark’s products, (2) Raymark’s products were a substantial factor in causing Zenobia’s injuries and (3) Raymark failed to warn Anchor of the dangers of asbestos. We cannot agree. As we stated in our opinion, in order to determine that Raymark is a joint tortfeasor, Anchor must prove every element of the case that the plaintiff Zenobia would be required to prove.
The plaintiff Zenobia could not recover against Raymark unless he proved that he was exposed to Raymark’s products and that Raymark’s products were a substantial factor
*670
in causing his harm.
Cf. Nissen Corp. v. Miller,
The mere “conjecture” that half of Anchor’s asbestos products may have come from Raymark over a thirty year period is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff Zenobia was exposed to Raymark’s products during the two year period that he worked at Maryland Shipbuilding and Dry-dock or that Raymark’s products were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff Zenobia’s injuries.
See Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED.
Notes
. Both Anchor and the plaintiffs were cross-petitioners in this Court, and their contentions primarily concerned the cross-claims against Raymark. A "Joint Record Extract” was filed. Under these circumstances, it was the obligation of Anchor and the plaintiffs to insure that the basic pleadings, or copies thereof, underlying their contentions were contained in the record {see Rule 8-413(a)) or that a motion to correct the record under Rule 8-414 be made prior to our opinion in this case. In the future, we shall not ordinarily entertain *669 requests to correct a record made after the filing of our opinion in a case.