MALONEY CONCRETE COMPANY v. DC Transit System, Inc.

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the provisions of Maryland Rule 315, permitting the joinder of third party defendants, precludes the bringing of a separate action for contribution against an alleged joint tort-feasor after the conclusion of the original action. The plaintiffs-appellants (Maloney Concrete Company and James D. Ganley) filed suit against the defendant-appellee (D. C. Transit System) on February 1, 1965. Besides stating that John P. Curry (the original plaintiff), who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, had brought suit against the plaintiffs-appellants (the original defendants) and recovered a judgment for $25,000 and costs, the declaration alleged that the defendant-appellee herein had recklessly and negligently “caused or contributed to the cause” of the injuries sustained by the original plaintiff and were therefore liable to the original defendants for contribution as a joint tort-feasor.

The defendant-appellee demurred to the declaration on the ground that it should have been joined as a third party defendant in the original action and, not having been so joined, was ⁴²² not subject to suit as a joint tort-feasor in this separate action. The lower court, apparently on the theory that because the plaintiffs-appellants could have but did not join the defendantappellee as a third party defendant in the original action they were precluded from maintaining this separate action, sustained the demurrer and entered a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant-appellee against the plaintiffs-appellants. We think the demurrer should have been overruled. Section a of Rule 315 provides in pertinent part that: “Where the defendant in an action claims that a person not a party to the action is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him, he may at any time after commencement of the action cause to be served a summons and third-party claim, * * * upon such third party. * * *” The purpose and meaning of the rule is clear.

It permits a defendant to bring in anyone as a third party defendant who is or may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the claim of the plaintiff, but it does not require the joinder of such party, nor preclude separate action against him. As was pointed out in Gorn v. Kolker, 213 Md. 551 , 133 A. 2d 65 (1957), Maryland Rule 315 is substantially the same as Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.