Helgerson v. Mammoth Mart, Inc., 73-287-A
| Decision Date | 02 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-287-A,73-287-A |
| Citation | 114 R.I. 438,335 A.2d 339 |
| Parties | Nathan J. HELGERSON v. MAMMOTH MART, INC. v. Vincent O'HALLORAN. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case is before us on an appeal filed by the third-party plaintiff, Mammoth Mart, Inc., from an order entered in the Superior Court granting a motion of the third-party defendant, O'Halloran, for a summary judgment.
The action was commenced by a complaint filed by plaintiff, Nathan J. Helgerson, in 1971, alleging that defendant, Mammoth Mart, 'sometime between July 13, 1970 and July 15, 1970,' stored ammunition for a pistol '* * * in full view of the public in a display case which was so broken that ammunition could be taken from it by patrons of the store.' The complaint further alleged that as a result of Mammoth Mart's negligence in keeping the show case in such condition, a minor (later identified as third-party defendant, O'Halloran) took ammunition from the display case, thereafter placed it in a pistol, and discharged it, thereby injuring plaintiff.
In answer to interrogatories, plaintiff stated that on the day of his injury he was at home. He heard a crash in his upstairs bedroom-someone had shot through the window. He called the police. They checked the area behind the house and found 22-caliber cartridges. Later in the day, he heard gunshots again. He went down to the cove of the reservoir where there was shooting. The plaintiff was struck by one of the bullets. The police were there and they caught O'Halloran as he turned to run away.
The plaintiff also filed suit against O'Halloran. He sought to consolidate that suit with the case at bar, but his motion to consolidate was denied.
Mammoth Mart thereafter obtained leave of court to file a third-party complaint for indemnity against O'Halloran. The latter filed an answer denying the right to indemnity and asserting that there was 'no legal basis for indemnity in contract or tort' and also setting forth that O'Halloran had entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiff and obtained a release from plaintiff which discharged him (O'Halloran) from all liability. 1
The third-party defendant O'Halloran then filed a motion for summary judgment. He based this motion on the second and third defenses of his answer to the third-party complaint. 2 After a hearing thereon, the trial justice granted the motion. An order to that effect was entered, whereupon Mammoth Mart filed this appeal.
While we do not know the basis of the trial justice's decision, it is fair to assume that she agreed with the defense set forth by third-party defendant O'Halloran in answer to the complaint filed by third-party plaintiff Mammoth Mart. For the reasons that follow we believe the trial justice erred and, therefore, we reverse.
The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment for the third- party defendant in an action for indemnity. The resolution of this question requires us to determine under what circumstances a third-party plaintiff can seek indemnity from a third-party defendant.
In this state the right of indemnity is preserved by statute. General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-6-9. 3 See City of Pawtucket v. A.F. & F. Bray, 20 R.I. 17, 37 A. 1 (1897). Although the right to indemnity traditionally arose from a contract, express or implied, modern law indicates a trend to allow indemnity on the basis of equity, for example, where one person is exposed to liability by the wrongful act of another in which he does not join. See San Mateo Union High School Dist. v. Yamas, 22 Cal.App.3d 185, 99 Cal.Rptr. 258 (1971); 41 Am.Jur.2d Indemnity § 2 at 688 (1968). Mammoth Mart argues for indemnity upon equitable considerations. We agree that this concept is sound and should be followed in this state. Mammoth Mart contends that O'Halloran was actively negligent while it (Mammoth Mart) was only passively negligent, if negligent at all. Perry v. St. Jean, 100 R.I. 622, 218 A.2d 484 (1966). Hence, it concludes, if found guilty of negligence, it may seek indemnification from O'Halloran. The latter counters that the release obtained from plaintiff operates as a satisfaction of any claim against him and that it is similarly a bar to indemnification since, by virtue of the release, he is no longer 'liable in tort.' He cites Zarrella v. Miller, 100 R.I. 545, 548, 217 A.2d 673, 675 (1966), where we had occasion to define the words 'liable in tort' as used in § 10-6-2.
We cannot agree with O'Halloran's position with respect to the release. The release involves only the rights of plaintiff against O'Halloran. It does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co.
...contract. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has assumed that a right of indemnity can be implied-in-fact, see Helgerson v. Mammoth Mart, Inc., 114 R.I. 438, 335 A.2d 339, 341 (1975), but has never so held. Many years ago Judge Day of this Court assumed that the doctrine existed in workers' com......
-
Testa v. Winquist
...sec. 10-6-1, et seq. (1969), and a right of indemnity, recognized by Rhode Island law, see, e. g., Helgerson v. Mammoth Mart, Inc., 114 R.I. 438, 441-42, 335 A.2d 339, 341-42 (1975). The premise of both these claims is that third-party plaintiffs may be held liable to plaintiffs for wrongdo......
-
Ciampi v. Zuczek
...v. Hayes, 64 F.3d 22, 25 (1st Cir.1995); see also Wilson v. Krasnoff, 560 A.2d 335, 341 (R.I.1989) (citing Helgerson v. Mammoth Mart, Inc., 114 R.I. 438, 335 A.2d 339, 341 (1975)). "[A]n equitable right to indemnity exists when one has been held liable solely because of the wrongful act of ......
-
Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval Inc.
... ... , 968 F.2d ... 1388, 1391 (1st Cir. 1992); Helgerson v. Mammoth Mart, ... Inc. , 114 R.I. 438, 440-42, 335 A.2d 339, ... ...