Morrissette v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 6675
Decision Date | 28 June 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 6675,6675 |
Parties | Lucienne MORRISSETTE v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (Shane Devine, Manchester, orally), for plaintiff.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls and James C. Wheat, Manchester, for defendant.
In 1963 Doris Morrissette Przybyla was a tenant of her sister-in-law, Lucienne Morrissette, plaintiff in the present third-party action, in premises in Nashua owned and partly occupied by Lucienne. Allegedly oone of the terms of the tenancy was that the tenants should mow the lawn. On June 22, 1963, Doris Przybyla was injured while operating a rotary lawn mower furnished by Lucienne on the leased premises. The mower had been purchased from defendant Sears, Roebuck & Company by Lucienne's husband in 1961. On May 15, 1969, Doris Przybyla brought a negligence action against Lucienne Morrissette. Lucienne Morrissette, in turn, brought the present third-party action over against Sears with counts in negligence, warranty, and strict liability. Super.Ct. Rule 25, RSA 491:App. R 25 (Supp.1973).
Trial of both actions commenced May 22, 1972. Counsel for Doris Przybyla made his opening statement, called his client to the stand, and interrogated her for approximately one-half hour. At this point a recess was called and the action of Przybyla against Morrissette was settled by a covenant not to sue. The Court, Loughlin, J., declined to proceed with trial of this third-party action by Morrissette against Sears, and reserved and transferred to this court five questions of law considered below.
Sears concedes that the concept of third-party practice requires that the third-party plaintiff be permitted to expand her pleadings beyond the single count contained in the original complaint against her. This view is consistent with the purpose of the rule to consolidate as many claims as possible in one proceeding, and the answer is that the third-party plaintiff may include additional counts in the action over. Super.Ct. Rule 25, RSA 491:App. R 25 (Supp.1973); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 14; 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1452 (1971); 3 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 14.04, 14.07 (1974). The defendant Sears however does not concede the third-party plaintiff's right to maintain her claim of breach of warranty.
Since the third-party plaintiff may expand her action against Sears to include counts not included in the original action, this question may not require an answer. It should be noted however, that Rule 25 neither creates nor modifies substantive rights in the parties. Super.Ct.Rule 25, RSA 491:App. R 25 (Supp.1973). Thus the substantive law relating to contribution among joint tort-feasors (Scahill v. Miniter, 101 N.H. 56, 132 A.2d 140 (1957)) may be applicable to third-party actions as to any other action. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Philip, 112 N.H. 282, 294 A.2d 211 (1972); see Buttrick v. Lessard, 110 N.H. 36, 260 A.2d 111 (1969); Stephan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 110 N.H. 248, 266 A.2d 855 (1970). However as Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Philip supra indicates, under some circumstances if it should appear that the third-party plaintiff Morrissette was herself causally negligent, she could not shift responsibility to the third-party defendant Sears.
'3. In the third-party action, can the third-party defendant attempt to show contributory negligence on the part of the original plaintiff?
Questions three and four are interrelated and may be considered together. Question four outlines a third-party plaintiff's burden of proof in an action for indemnity where the original action has been settled. A right to Merck & Co. v. Knox Glass, Inc., 328 F.Supp. 374, 376-377 (E.D.Pa.1971); Burbage v. Boiler Eng'r and Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A.2d 563 (1969); DiGregorio v. Champlain Valley Fruit Co., 127 Vt. 562, 255 A.2d 183 (1969). While a prejudgment payment in settlement does not extinguish a right of indemnity (Globe Indem. Co. v. Schmitt, 142 Ohio St. 595, 53 N.E.2d 790 (1944)) the third-party plaintiff must show that the settlement was made nuder legal compulsion, rather than as a mere volunteer, for indemnity is not available for payment voluntarily made. Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182 (1965); United Boatbuilders, Inc. v. Tempo Prods. Co., 1 Wash.App. 177, 459 P.2d 958 (1969); Aetna Freight Lines, Inc. v. R. C. Tway Co., 352 S.W.2d 372 (Ky.1961).
The parties agree that third-party plaintiff, Morrissette, must make some showing that she settled under a legal compulsion. The conflict surrounds the scope of her burden in this area. Sears argues that she must prove 'actual liability' on her part to Pryzbyla, in effect forcing her to try out the case of the original plaintiff. As plaintiff herein, Morrissette argues that she need only show view. 'While the fact of voluntary payment does not negative the right to indemnity, legal liability, i.e., proof by a preponderance of the evidence of the obligation . . . that cannot be legally resisted is a fundamental prerequisite to recovery by an indemnitee who has made a voluntary payment.' Cason v. Geis Irrigation Co., 211 Kan. 406, 413, 407 P.2d 295, 300 (1973); see also United Boatbuilders, Inc. v. Tempo Prods. Co., 1 Wash.App. 177, 459 P.2d 958 (1969). Some cases adopt a less precise statement that one voluntarily paying a claim 'should be required to show that he was legally liable for it.' Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. General Tel. Co., 462 S.W.2d 190 (Ky.1970); see Press & Shear Mach. Corp. v. L. & J. Press Corp., 326 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Pa. 1971); 41 Am.Jur.2d Indemnity § 33 (1968).
Other cases say that the third-party plaintiff must 'establish potential liability' but need not prove the case against himself. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 12 Ill.App.3d 165, 298 N.E.2d 289 (1973).
If a third-party plaintiff is not to be discouraged from making a settlement his burden in an action for indemnity must not be too great. He would in effect be forced to proceed to trial against the original plaintiff in order to achieve the burden imposed by the court in Cason v. Geis Irrigation Co., 211 Kan. 406, 413, 507 P.2d 295, 300 (1973), and would find settlement to little advantage. On the other hand, equitable considerations require that the third-party defendant have a reasonable opportunity to show that the third-party plaintiff was not liable to the original plaintiff but paid the claim as a volunteer.
In the case before us, it appears that Morrissette's tender to Sears of the defense of the original action by Przybyla was declined, and that consolidation for trial of the third- party action with the original tort suit was subsequently ordered by denial of Sears' motion for separate trial. Morrissette asserts in her brief that Sears was also afforded an opportunity to participate in the proposed settlement, but chose to leave the matter to Morrissette and therefore should be bound by her action. Crawford v. Pope & Talbot Inc., 206 F.2d 784 (3d Cir. 1953). While Sears concedes that having declined to participate in the original action it would be bound by any judgment rendered (Lamberton v. Dinsmore, 75 N.H. 574, 78 A. 620 (1910)) it asserts that in fact it participated in the partial trial of that action, and now seeks only to preserve its right to a hearing on relevant issues, including that of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff Przybyla which was foreshortened by the compromise settlement. Whether Sears was tendered an opportunity to approve of the proposed settlement, or in the alternative to assume defense of the action, does not appear.
The solution of the 'actual-versuspotential problem' advanced by the court in Parfait v. Jahncke Service, Inc., 484 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1973) strikes us as logical, equitable, and worthy of adoption here. The court there quoted from Jennings v. United States, 374 F.2d 983, 986 (4th Cir. 1967) as follows: 'The indemnitee's unilateral acts, albeit reasonable and undertaken in good faith, cannot bind the indemnitor; notice and an opportunity to defend are the indispensable due process satisfying elements.' The court in Parfait then continued: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. Cannons Engineering Corp.
... ... , Mahoney & Miller, Boston, Mass., for Giusti Baking Co. of New Bedford ... 720 F. Supp. 1030 ... See Morrissette v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 114 N.H. 384, 322 A.2d 7, 9 ... ...
-
Valloric v. Dravo Corp.
... ... Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979). 1 As a ... 270, 274 N.W.2d 33 (1978); Morrisette v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 114 N.H. 384, 322 A.2d 7 (1974); Plumbers ... Furthermore, as pointed out in Morrissette supra, 114 N.H. at 388, 322 A.2d at 10, to require proof of ... ...
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Morris
... ... See Farmers Insurance Co. of Arizona v. Vagnozzi, 138 Ariz. 443, 448, 675 P.2d 703, ... Higashi, 67 Hawaii 12, 675 P.2d 767 (1984); Morrissette ... Sears ... Sears, Roebuck ... ...
-
Town of Hooksett School Dist. v. WR Grace and Co.
... ... 632, 634, 348 A.2d 716, 718 (1975) (citing Morrissette v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 114 N.H. 384, 387, 322 A.2d 7, 19 (1974), or ... ...