Slocum v. Donahue

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1998 · Torts

693 N.E.2d 179 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsContributionIndemnitySettlementProducts liabilitygood faith settlementjoint tortfeasorsG. L. c. 231B § 4

Facts

The Slocums sued Robert and Dolores Donahue after their twenty-two month old son was killed in an accident involving Robert Donahue's car. The Donahues denied negligence and filed a third-party complaint against Ford, claiming a defective floor mat interfered with the braking system and caused the accident. Before trial, Ford paid the Slocums $150,000 in exchange for a release, then argued that the settlement extinguished any contribution claim and that indemnity was unavailable. The Donahues contended the settlement lacked good faith because it was too low and allegedly gave the Slocums tactical access to Ford's experts.

Issue

Whether Ford's settlement with the Slocums was made in good faith so as to bar the Donahues' contribution claim under G. L. c. 231B, § 4, and whether the Donahues could nonetheless pursue indemnity against Ford. The court also considered whether entry of separate and final judgment under Rule 54(b) was proper.

Rule

Under G. L. c. 231B, § 4, a good-faith release given to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury discharges the settling tortfeasor from all liability for contribution to any other tortfeasor. A low settlement figure alone does not show bad faith; bad faith is indicated by collusion, fraud, dishonesty, or other wrongful conduct, and settlements should ordinarily be approved without extended hearings absent a substantial showing to the contrary. Indemnity is permitted only when the would-be indemnitee did not join in the negligent act and is held only derivatively or vicariously liable for the wrongful act of another.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Maya Ortiz sued landlord Ethan Pike after a porch collapse injured her. Ethan filed a third-party claim against Beacon Timber Works, alleging defective support brackets, but Beacon paid Maya $40,000 for a release before trial even though Maya's medical bills alone exceeded that amount.

If Ethan argues that Beacon's settlement amount was too low and therefore his contribution claim should survive, which result is most likely?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a good-faith release to one of multiple tortfeasors extinguishes contribution claims against the settlor. The court specifically rejected the argument that a modest or low settlement amount, by itself, shows bad faith. Bad faith instead requires collusion, fraud, dishonesty, or similar wrongful conduct.