Preview:

Headnote: Tina R. Hill v. Ricardo L. Scartascini, et al., No. 1997, September Term 1999. TORTS - JOINT TORTFEASORS ACT - Under the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act, when a jury award against a non-settling tort-feasor is less than a settlement payment by a settling joint tort-feasor, judgment should not be entered for the non-settling defendant, but rather, the judgment for plaintiff is reduced and satisfied.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 01997 September Term, 1999 _________________________________ __

TINA R. HILL

v.

RICARDO L. SCARTASCINI, et al.

_________________________________ __

Moylan, Eyler, Johnson, Stephen P., (specially assigned) JJ.

_________________________________ __ Opinion by Johnson, J. _________________________________ __

Filed: September 6, 2000

"Zero is neither negative nor positive, but the narrowest of no-man's land between these two kingdoms."1 And in some

situations, such as this, it is more than just a placeholder; it can be an inaccurate and significant misrepresentation of

reality. This appeal addresses what judgment should be entered when a jury award is less than a settlement payment by a joint tortfeasor pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors' Act. Tina Hill, appellant and the plaintiff

below, brings this appeal from a post-trial Order by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County reducing a jury verdict in her favor to zero dollars ($0.00) and L. entering judgment M.D. for and the his

appellees/defendants

Ricardo

Scartascini,

professional corporation.

On appeal, Hill asks this court to

address whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendants rather than entering the plaintiff's judgment as "satisfied." contrary to the Appellees language maintain of the that Joint Hill's argument is

Tort-Feasor's

Release

which she executed, is contrary to the "true outcome" of the case, and that the appeal should be dismissed as moot. reasons discussed below, we hold that the For the was

judgment

incorrectly entered by the trial court and that it should be

1

Robert Kaplan, The Nothing That Is, A Natural History of Zero, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 190.

amended to reflect more accurately how this case was concluded. FACTS On August 14, 1995, Hill underwent an emergency Cesarean section in suffered injuries. a the Prince George's uterus and Medical Center, as the in which as she

ruptured She

bladder, against

well

other Dr.

brought

suit

physician,

Scartascini, his professional corporation, and Dimensions Health Corporation ("Dimensions"), which owns the hospital, alleging

negligence and lack of informed consent. Hill settled her claim against Dimensions

On August 9, 1999, for $100,000 and

signed a Joint Tort-Feasor's Release.2

The case against Dr.

Scartascini and his professional corporation (collectively, "Dr. Scartascini") proceeded to trial, and at the conclusion of the five day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for Hill in the amount of $72,056.87. Because the jury award was less than the

amount paid by Dimensions, Dr. Scartascini filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment seeking to have the judgment reduced to zero dollars ($0.00), or, alternatively, favor. Hill to have the judgment motion,

entered in

the

defendants'

opposed

The Maryland Code defines joint tort-feasors as "two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them." MD. CODE (1998 Repl. Vol.) CTS. & JUD. PROC.

Download Hill v. Scartascini.pdf

Maryland Law