Lexplug logoLexplug

Slocum v. Donahue

Massachusetts Appeals Court
44 Mass.App.Ct. 937 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Massachusetts G. L. c. 231B, § 4, a settlement given in good faith by one of multiple tortfeasors discharges that tortfeasor from all liability for contribution to any other tortfeasor. A low settlement amount alone is insufficient to prove a lack of good faith; a challenge requires evidence of collusion, fraud, dishonesty, or other wrongful conduct.


Facts:

  • Robert Donahue was backing his car out of his driveway when the engine began to race and the car accelerated uncontrollably.
  • The car became airborne after hitting a curb, turned, hit a fence, and fatally struck the Slocums' twenty-two-month-old son, Todd Slocum.
  • Donahue claimed that a defective floor mat in his Ford vehicle became lodged under the throttle and interfered with the power brakes, causing the accident.
  • Donahue had previously pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of motor vehicle homicide in the death of Todd Slocum.
  • In a deposition for the civil case, Donahue admitted that prior to the accident, he was drinking from a bottle of vodka he kept in his car.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Slocums filed a civil action in a Massachusetts trial court against the Donahues, alleging negligence and gross negligence.
  • The Donahues filed a third-party complaint against Ford Motor Company (Ford), alleging negligence and breach of warranty and seeking contribution and indemnity.
  • Prior to trial, the Slocums and Ford entered into a settlement agreement for $150,000 in exchange for a release of all claims against Ford.
  • Ford filed a motion for summary judgment against the Donahues, arguing that the good faith settlement extinguished all claims for contribution and indemnity.
  • The trial court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Donahues' third-party complaint against Ford.
  • The Donahues (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one alleged tortfeasor extinguish a co-tortfeasor's right to contribution under G. L. c. 231B, § 4, when the non-settling tortfeasor alleges the settlement was not in good faith due to its low amount and the sharing of expert witnesses?


Opinions:

Majority - Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Yes. A settlement given in good faith extinguishes all claims for contribution against the settling tortfeasor, and the Donahues failed to provide sufficient evidence that the settlement between Ford and the Slocums was collusive or otherwise made in bad faith. The court’s reasoning follows the precedent set in Noyes v. Raymond, which holds that the purpose of the contribution statute is to promote settlement. A low settlement figure alone is not evidence of bad faith, particularly when the settling party's liability is questionable, as Ford's was here given Donahue's guilty plea and admission to drinking. The Donahues’ allegation that the Slocums' use of Ford's experts indicates collusion is speculative and does not trigger the need for an extensive hearing. Furthermore, the Donahues' claim for indemnity fails because indemnity is only available to a party held vicariously liable without any fault of its own, whereas any liability for the Donahues would stem from their own negligence, making contribution the exclusive remedy between joint tortfeasors.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold required to challenge the 'good faith' of a settlement under contribution statutes, thereby strengthening the public policy of encouraging settlements. The court clarifies that a non-settling defendant cannot void a co-defendant's settlement simply by arguing the amount is too low or that the settling parties are cooperating. This protects settling parties by providing them with finality and an exit from litigation, which is critical in complex, multi-party tort cases. For future litigants, this case establishes that a claim of bad faith must be supported by concrete evidence of wrongful conduct like collusion or fraud, not mere speculation about tactical motivations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Slocum v. Donahue (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Slocum v. Donahue