Hammond v. KOLBERG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Civ. A. No. 81-C-1293.
| Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado |
| Writing for the Court | John L. Breit, Judith H. Holmes, Hansen & Breit, P. C., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff |
| Citation | 542 F. Supp. 662 |
| Parties | George E. HAMMOND, Plaintiff, v. KOLBERG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a South Dakota corporation, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-C-1293. |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1982 |
542 F. Supp. 662
George E. HAMMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
KOLBERG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a South Dakota corporation, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 81-C-1293.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
June 22, 1982.
John L. Breit, Judith H. Holmes, Hansen & Breit, P. C., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Geoffrey S. Race, Weller, Friedrich, Hickisch & Hazlitt, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
ORDER
CARRIGAN, District Judge.
Defendant has filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. Plaintiff has submitted written objections. The issues have been thoroughly briefed and oral argument would not materially assist in considering or deciding the motion.
The plaintiff was seriously injured when his arm was caught in a conveyor belt manufactured by the defendant. At the time he was injured, the plaintiff was employed by Green Construction Company. Plaintiff elected to receive Workmen's Compensation benefits, thus precluding a claim against his employer. § 8-42-102, C.R.S.1973. He also filed this action against the manufacturer. The defendant now seeks to implead the employer, Green Construction Company, in this product liability case against the manufacturer. Defendant asserts the theories of indemnity and contribution.
The Colorado Workmen's Compensation Act, which governs this question, explicitly sets forth the ramifications of an employee's receiving benefits under the Act. § 8-42-102, C.R.S.1973. Once an employer has complied with the Act's requirements, it is "not subject to any other liability for the death of or personal injury to any employee ...." § 8-42-102, C.R.S.1973. Common law actions, otherwise available against an employer, are abolished. Id.
The Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that indemnity actions by a manufacturer against an employer, who has paid an injured employee workmen's compensation, are barred. Hilzer v. McDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d
928 (1969); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Company, 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977)Contribution, likewise, is unavailable to the defendant. The Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, § 13-50.5-101, C.R.S.1973, adopted by Colorado in 1977, allows contribution "where two or more persons become jointly liable in tort...." Because the Workmen's Compensation Act immunizes an employer from tort liability to a covered employee, the employer is not "jointly liable in tort."
Although the Colorado Supreme Court has not yet held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Honeywell Protective Services, Honeywell, Inc.
...396 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1968); Central Stikstof Verkoopkanter, N.V. v. Walsh Steve. Co., 380 F.2d 523 (5th Cir.1967); Hammond v. Kolberg, 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982); Lockhart v. Heede Intern., Inc., 445 F.Supp. 28 (E.D.Tenn.1977); Burrell v. Rodgers, 441 F.Supp. 275 (W.D.Okla.1977); Coleman......
-
A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co., No. 93-0162L.
...to cases under Alabama law); Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. U.S., 755 F.Supp. 269 (D.Alaska 1990); Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982); In re General Dynamics Asbestos Cases, 539 F.Supp. 1106 (D.Conn.1982) (interpreting the LWHCA); Coleman v. General Motors Corp.,......
-
Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc., No. 84-K-1707.
...actions for contribution. Greer v. Intercole Automation, Inc., 553 F.Supp. 275 (D.Colo.1982); Hammond v. Kolberg Manufacturing Corp., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982). The district court's rationale was that an employer who complied with the Workmen's Compensation Act was immune from common la......
-
Greer v. Intercole Automation, Inc., Civ. A. No. 81-JM-1801.
...see, also, 553 F. Supp. 277 Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. & Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954); Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Co., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo. 1982) (action for indemnity and contribution). Undaunted, Intercole urges that the extension of immunity embodied in these authorities is......
-
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Honeywell Protective Services, Honeywell, Inc.
...396 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1968); Central Stikstof Verkoopkanter, N.V. v. Walsh Steve. Co., 380 F.2d 523 (5th Cir.1967); Hammond v. Kolberg, 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982); Lockhart v. Heede Intern., Inc., 445 F.Supp. 28 (E.D.Tenn.1977); Burrell v. Rodgers, 441 F.Supp. 275 (W.D.Okla.1977); Coleman......
-
A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co., No. 93-0162L.
...to cases under Alabama law); Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. U.S., 755 F.Supp. 269 (D.Alaska 1990); Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982); In re General Dynamics Asbestos Cases, 539 F.Supp. 1106 (D.Conn.1982) (interpreting the LWHCA); Coleman v. General Motors Corp.,......
-
Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc., No. 84-K-1707.
...actions for contribution. Greer v. Intercole Automation, Inc., 553 F.Supp. 275 (D.Colo.1982); Hammond v. Kolberg Manufacturing Corp., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo.1982). The district court's rationale was that an employer who complied with the Workmen's Compensation Act was immune from common la......
-
Greer v. Intercole Automation, Inc., Civ. A. No. 81-JM-1801.
...see, also, 553 F. Supp. 277 Ward v. Denver & R.G.W.R. & Co., 119 F.Supp. 112 (D.Colo.1954); Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Co., 542 F.Supp. 662 (D.Colo. 1982) (action for indemnity and contribution). Undaunted, Intercole urges that the extension of immunity embodied in these authorities is......