Sherman Concrete Pipe Machinery, Inc. v. Gadsden Concrete & Metal Pipe Co., Inc.
| Citation | 335 So.2d 125 |
| Parties | SHERMAN CONCRETE PIPE MACHINERY, INC. v. GADSDEN CONCRETE & METAL PIPE CO., INC. SC 1639. |
| Decision Date | 02 July 1976 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gilbert E. Johnston, Gilbert E. Johnston, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
McDaniel, Hall, Parsons & Conerly, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing Sherman's third-party complaint against Gadsden.
Robert Norris, an employee of Gadsden, filed a damage suit against Sherman, the manufacturer of a machine by which he was injured, and an insurance company, who inspected the machine for safety. Norris' complaint against the manufacturer alleged negligent design, manufacture and putting into commerce an imminently dangerous machine, and breach of warranty. The insurance company allegedly was negligent in performing the safety inspection.
Sherman filed a third-party claim against Gadsden alleging its active negligence was the proximate cause of Norris' injury, and seeking indemnity for any sums that might be adjudged against Sherman. Gadsden moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, stating in essense: (1) there is no right to indemnification among joint tortfeasors in Alabama; (2) a party sued for in effect negligent manufacture is necessarily actively negligent or not at all and is, therefore, prohibited from impleading a joint tortfeasor on the basis of a duty to indemnify; and (3) Alabama's Workmen's Compensation Act precludes the maintenance of a third-party action against an employer, subject to the Act, by a party who has been sued by his employee for personal injuries compensable under the Act.
While indemnity involves some form of contribution, the two are distinguishable. The theory of indemnity holds the defendant liable for the whole damage (joint tortfeasors in pari delicto) flowing from contract. In contribution the defendant is chargeable only with a ratable proportion based upon equitable factors measured by equality of burden. 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 3; 18 Am.Jur.2d Contributions § 2. Contribution, therefore, distributes the loss equally among all tortfeasors; indemnity seeks to transfer the entire loss of one tortfeasor to another who, in equity and justice should bear it. Cf. Herrero v. Alkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 38 Cal.Rptr. 490, 8 A.L.R.3d 629. The general rule in Alabama, subject to exceptions, prohibits one of several joint tortfeasors from enforcing contribution from the others who participated in the wrong. This is because of the maxim that no man can make his own misconduct the ground for an action in his own favor. Gobble v. Bradford, 226 Ala. 517, 147 So. 619 (1933). And, in the case of indemnity, where joint tortfeasors are equally at fault, i.e. where each is chargeable with active or affirmative negligence contributing to the injury, for which recovery was had, neither is entitled to indemnity from the other, although he may be entitled to contribution. Symons v. Mueller Company, 526 F.2d 13 (10th Cir. 1975); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indemnity § 21; cf. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Dime Taxi Service, Inc., 275 Ala. 51, 151 So.2d 783, on contribution under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
In the case before us,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. Shore Hellenic Church, Inc. v. Artech Church Interiors, Inc.
...the main action. Such a defense, however, does not provide the basis for an indemnity claim. Sherman Concrete Pipe Mach., Inc. v. Gadsden Concrete & Metal Pipe Co., 335 So.2d 125, 127 (Ala.1976). Robinson v. International Harvester Co., 44 Ill.App.3d 439, 444–46, 3 Ill.Dec. 150, 358 N.E.2d ......
-
Arcell v. Ashland Chemical Co., Inc.
...852 (E.D.Mich.1975); Saad v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 399 F.Supp. 523 (E.D.Mich.1975); Sherman Concrete Pipe Machinery Inc. v. Gadsen Concrete & Metal Pipe Co., Inc., 335 So.2d 125 (Ala.Sup.Ct.1976). Little purpose would be served here by undertaking an in-depth review of these cases. In m......
-
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. J.M. Tull Metals Co.
...did not address the nature of the indemnity claim and, without mentioning Eley, relied on Sherman Concrete Pipe Machinery, Inc. v. Gadsden Concrete & Metal Pipe Co., 335 So.2d 125 (Ala.1976), which involved an implied, rather than an express, contractual agreement to reach its conclusion. L......
-
Decker v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co.
...the main action. Such a defense, however, does not provide the basis for an indemnity claim. Sherman Concrete Pipe Mach., Inc. v. Gadsden Concrete & Metal Pipe Co., 335 So.2d 125, 127 (Ala.1976). Robinson v. International Harvester Co., 44 Ill.App.3d 439, 444-446, 3 Ill.Dec. 150, 358 N.E.2d......