McCain Mfg. Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
| Citation | 695 F.2d 803 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1111,82-1111 |
| Parties | McCAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Susan M. Smythe, Charleston, S.C. (Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Charleston, S.C., on brief), for appellant.
Robert A. Patterson, Charleston, S.C. (Thomas J. Wills, IV, Barnwell, Whaley, Stevenson & Patterson, Charleston, S.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Rockwell International Corporation, from whom plaintiff McCain Manufacturing was seeking indemnity. By this suit, McCain hoped to recover $64,000 it had spent in settling a personal injury suit brought against it by one Dale Morris.
In 1975, McCain Manufacturing Corporation was in possession of a "Brackett Trimmer," a paper cutting machine with a guillotine blade. McCain contracted to sell the trimmer to the employer of Dale Morris, and simultaneously agreed to repaint, refurbish and place it in safe operating order prior to delivery. Because McCain was unfamiliar with Brackett Trimmers, it contracted with Rockwell International, the manufacturer of the almost forty year old machine, to obtain electrical diagrams necessary properly to rewire the trimmer. Rockwell was also to assist in going over the machine and seeing that it was put into safe operating order. To that end, Rockwell sent one of its factory experts to examine the trimmer after McCain had completed the rewiring. At that time, Rockwell's expert added certain safety features to the machine and corrected various problems. When Rockwell had completed its work on the trimmer, McCain installed it at Dale Morris's workplace in Charleston, South Carolina.
The trimmer had two separate electrical circuits. One, of 220 volts, provided power to the motor which actuated the blade, while the second circuit, of 110 volts, energized the control mechanisms. With the control circuit on and the main motor circuit off, it was possible to actuate the clutch so that it would become engaged and remain engaged. In that event, energizing the main motor circuit would cause an unexpected cycling of the cutting blade. That appears to have been what happened when Dale Morris lost his hand.
The problem had been recognized by Rockwell, or its predecessor, in 1950, for trimmers manufactured after that were provided with a "safety dog" which insured disengagement of the clutch in those circumstances. Machines manufactured in 1968 and later were provided with a second safety device, an interlock between the two circuits, so that one could not be energized without energizing the other.
When this trimmer was refurbished in 1975, Rockwell's factory expert corrected some problems and provided one safety device, but provided neither of the available safety devices to prevent unexpected cycling of the blade. Nor did he tell McCain of the risk of harm posed by the machine without such devices.
In 1979, Morris sued McCain and Rockwell for the injury he had suffered. He asserted causes of action against both defendants for breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability. McCain cross-claimed against Rockwell for indemnity.
At the close of Morris's case, Rockwell settled with Morris for $75,000. As part of that settlement, Morris agreed to pursue his action against McCain in negligence only. The trial judge then dismissed, without prejudice, McCain's cross-claim for indemnity against Rockwell.
The trial then continued on the issue of McCain's negligence. Before submission of the case to the jury however, McCain, fearing the possibility of a large verdict against it, settled with Morris for $64,000.
In the present action, McCain sued Rockwell to recover the $64,000 it expended in its settlement with Dale Morris. Although McCain's complaint sounded primarily in indemnity, McCain also claimed against Rockwell for breach of contract and warranty arising from Rockwell's alleged unworkmanlike assistance in the refurbishing work. The trial judge, believing that the only relevant factual issues in this indemnity suit already had been developed fully in Morris's suit, limited further discovery by McCain.
In granting summary judgment for Rockwell, the trial judge characterized McCain's claim as one for common law noncontractual indemnity. In order to recover on such a theory in South Carolina, the trial judge found the would-be indemnitee must show (1) that it had made the payment for which it was seeking indemnification under legal compulsion, and (2) that no negligence of its own had contributed to the injury. The trial judge found that McCain, as a matter of law, could not make the required showing because "under the facts of this case, even as alleged by the plaintiff McCain, the two essential elements of recovery ... are mutually exclusive." If there was a legal obligation to make payment to Dale Morris, who alleged only negligence against McCain after the Rockwell settlement, that must be because there was some negligence chargeable to McCain. Absent such negligence, that payment to Morris was a gift and McCain a volunteer. Either way, reasoned the trial court, McCain's claim for indemnity must fail.
In Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Whetstone, 243 S.C. 61, 132 S.E.2d 172 (1963), relied upon by the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Barker
...See United States v. Bynum, 602 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.Mass.1984); United States v. Lyons, 507 F.Supp. 551, 557 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 695 F.2d 803 (4th Cir. 1982). In Lyons, members of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department assisted the D.E.A. in monitoring federally authorized wire......
-
Ashley Ii of Charleston Llc v. Pcs Nitrogen Inc.
...(quoting Winnsboro v. Wiedeman–Singleton, Inc., 303 S.C. 52, 398 S.E.2d 500 (S.C.Ct.App.1990)); see also McCain Mfg. Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 695 F.2d 803 (4th Cir.1982) (finding that in South Carolina, if a joint tortfeasor could prove that it had a contractual indemnification agre......
-
Lightner v. Duke Power Co.
...between the parties, one who is himself negligent cannot maintain an action for indemnity. See McCain Manufacturing Corp. v. Rockwell International Corp., 695 F.2d 803 (4th Cir.1982). Moreover, in JKT Co. v. Hardwick, 284 S.C. 10, 325 S.E.2d 329 (Ct.App.1984), the state court of appeals dis......
-
Marshall v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
...of a defective product is not liable in negligence for defective design." (citing Marchant)), vacated on other grounds, 695 F.2d 803 (4th Cir. 1982). In this case, as in Marchant and Rife, there is no evidence upon which a jury could conclude Lowe's was negligent in designing the Heater. Fa......