Settlement Admissibility: Glory Days v. Fletcher
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog discusses Maryland cases in other areas of personal injury, where the issues also arise in medical malpractice cases. In this post, I examine the issue of the admissibility of a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and a settling defendant. The case is the March 10, 2025, unreported opinion in Glory Days Grill of Eldersburg, LLC, v. Fletcher, No. 1954.
Factual Background
The case involves a plaintiff who sued for injury from a slip and fall at a restaurant’s parking lot. The circumstances are as follows: The plaintiff, after dining at the restaurant, was leaving. She then stepped off the curb onto the parking lot, onto river rocks that had come out of decorative beds onto the walking path and hid under some leaves and other debris. The plaintiff subsequently fell and broke her ankle, requiring surgery with screws to repair it. (Op. at 2).
The plaintiff filed suit against the restaurant and the owner of the property in the Circuit Court for Howard County. Before trial, the plaintiff and owner entered a settlement agreement and a joint tortfeasor release. The plaintiff also moved in limine to exclude the admissibility of the settlement release, which the trial judge granted. The jury then awarded the plaintiff damages of over $600,000. The court reduced the judgment under the joint tortfeasors act due to the settlement with the owner. (Id. at 2-3, 6-7).
Consequently, the restaurant raised four issues on appeal. This Blog post deals with the admissibility of the joint tortfeasor release. (Id. at 7-8).
Appellate Court of Maryland
The restaurant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence of the settlement with the owner. (Id. at 18).
The Appellate Court noted that a defendant generally denying liability may present evidence of a nonparty’s negligence and causation as an affirmative defense, citing Browne v. State Farm. (Id. at 19). However, the courts exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Rule 5-403. (Id. at 21).
Admissibility of the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and nonparty has minute probative value for establishing negligence and causation. Accordingly, it poses a significant risk of unfair prejudice. (Id. at 22). The agreement could confuse the jury, mislead them in their deliberations, or they could construe it as an admission of liability by the settling defendant. (Id. at 21). The trial court allowed the restaurant to put on evidence that established the owner’s exclusive control of the location of the fall and allowed a stipulation stating that the owner bore some responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries. The Appellate Court then affirmed the judgment. (Id. at 22).
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Admissibility of Settlement Agreement
The trial court and Appellate Court reached the correct decision in this case. The defense can present evidence of nonparty negligence and causation, as it did here.
However, a defendant can enter into a settlement for a multitude of reasons that can be in addition to the evidence of negligence and causation. A defendant may prefer a known settlement over the unknown of a jury verdict. It may also want to bring closure to avoid additional legal fees. It may want to avoid publicity. However, the settlement agreement generally does not discuss these factors. These factors can make it difficult to weigh the relevance of a settlement. The courts properly excluded it.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.