Opinion ID: 2295382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Some Considered Dicta

Text: No party to the instant case argues that Ricky should be deemed timely to have sued on the theory that, when the Mutis timely sued, they also represented Ricky whom they should have identified as a use plaintiff. We are nevertheless constrained to clarify some language in Williams v. Work and in Ace v. Williams that should not be read as producing that result. In Work, the Court of Special Appeals said: In common law pleading, a `use plaintiff'; is `[a] plaintiff for whom action is brought in another's name.' Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., p. 1547. As explained above, Rule 15-1001(b) requires that all the statutory beneficiaries be made plaintiffs in a wrongful death action, whether or not they join. When they do not join in the action, they are identified as `use plaintiffs' and the action proceeds to their use or benefit. All known beneficiaries must be `plaintiffs' under the rule and the court is put on notice that any recovery is for the benefit of all plaintiffs, joined or otherwise, in accordance with their statutory interest, whether that interest is represented by an award of damages as the result of a trial, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904(c), or by a settlement, Walker, 318 Md. at 518, 569 A.2d [at 645]. Notice to the use plaintiffs is required, but the duty owed to them as plaintiffs extends beyond mere notice. That continuing duty is, in our view, made clear in Walker, 318 Md. at 524, 569 A.2d [at 648], where the Court explained that the claims of beneficiaries in such actions are not severable. As the Court stated: `A judgment should not have been entered in the circuit court unless it included the interests of all of the known beneficiaries.' Id.  Work, 192 Md.App. at 460-61, 995 A.2d at 758 (footnote omitted). Our opinion in Ace did not incorporate the above passage, but we did say: To interpret the Rule as simply a notice rule disregards: (1) the representative nature of wrongful death actions; (2) the language of Rule 15-1001(b), requiring that `all persons who are or may be entitled by law to damages by reason of the wrongful death shall be named as plaintiffs whether or not they join in the action[;]' and (3) the provisions of Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904(c) relating to the award of damages to the statutory `beneficiaries' `proportional to injury resulting from the wrongful death.' Ace, 418 Md. at 424, 15 A.3d at 775. The above passages were written in cases in which the wrongful death claim was affirmatively asserted by particular beneficiaries themselves who had been omitted as use plaintiffs by the original plaintiffs. In addition, those omitted use plaintiffs asserted their claims within three years of the deceased's death. Even if Ricky had been identified as a use plaintiff when this action was filed, but did not join as a plaintiff within three years of Elliott's death, his identification as a use plaintiff would not permit him to join more than three years after Elliott's death. Rule 15-1001(b) distinguishes between those beneficiaries who join in the action for damages and those, the use plaintiffs, who do not. Use plaintiffs who wish to assert their respective claims for damages must timely join the action by indicating to the court and to the original parties in some clear fashion that they are claiming their share. [13] Ordinarily, this is done by intervening. That procedure was spelled out in the Q Rules in Rule Q43. The structure of the current Rules of Procedure does not repeat in the Special Proceedings Rules procedures that are covered by Title 2. See Rule 1-101(b) (Title 2 applies to civil matters in the circuit courts, except for Juvenile Causes ... and except as otherwise specifically provided or necessarily implied). Intervention in wrongful death cases is now covered by Rule 2-214. CJ § 3-904 and Rule 15-1001 cannot be construed to anoint counsel for the original ( i.e. joined) plaintiffs as the attorney for the use plaintiffs as well. By designating potential beneficiaries as use plaintiffs, counsel demonstrates that he or she does not represent them and has no authority to make decisions for them or to present evidence, including proof of damages, on their behalf. To hold otherwise invites grave problems of conflict of interest. See R.T. Michael, The USE Plaintiff in Maryland Wrongful Death Cases: Some Ethical Observations, Fall 2008 Trial Reporter 9 (2008).