State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Charlton
| Decision Date | 17 September 1974 |
| Citation | 70 O.O.2d 101,322 N.E.2d 333,41 Ohio App.2d 107 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 70 O.O.2d 101 STATE FARM MUT. AUTO INS. CO. et al. v. CHARLTON, Appellee, Richards & Simmons, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Civ.R. 14(A) does not permit a third-party complaint to be founded upon an independent cause of action of the defendant against the third-party defendant, even though arising out of the same occurrence upon which the claim of the plaintiff was predicated, since the foundation of a third-party complaint must be that the third party is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.
2. Where a plaintiff chooses to sue only one of two joint or concurrent tortfeasors, the defendant may not maintain a third-party complaint against the other tortfeasor because there is no right of contribution from a co-tortfeasor.
3. Although judicial economy is a virtue and extends, to the extent feasible and possible, to efforts to combine in one action all matters arising from a single occurrence or transaction, it does not extend to grant relief to a plaintiff which he has not sought against a party he has not sued.
Emerson Cheek, III, Columbus, for plaintiffs.
Tyack, Scott & Colley, Columbus, for appellee.
Graham & Nemeth, Columbus, for appellant.
Third-party-defendant Richards & Simmons appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court against it and defendant Betty Charlton (third-party plaintiff) in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their complaint, seeking to recover from defendant Betty Charlton for damages to a motor vehicle received in an accident allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant.
Defendant Charlton filed a third-party complaint against Richards & Simmons, contending that its negligence was the cause of the accident and seeking to recover for damage to her automobile incurred in the accident and also seeking judgment against the third-party defendant 'for all sums that may be adjudged against defendant in favor of plaintiffs.' Although not specifically so stated in the third-party complaint, Charlton alleged to the effect that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of Richards & Simmons. However, if the accident was found to have been a matter of joint negligence, then the complaint sought contribution from the third-party defendant for any damages found to be due from Charlton to plaintiffs.
Richards & Simmons filed a motion to strike the third-party complaint from the files upon the grounds that such complaint was not proper. This motion was overruled by the trial court, as was a motion to reconsider. At the commencement of the trial plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint and join the third-party defendant Richards & Simmons as a party defendant and to assert a claim against it. This motion was overruled by the trial court.
The case proceeded to trial, and the trial court rendered a judgment 'for the plaintiffs against Betty Charlton and Richards & Simmons for the sum of $1455.97 & costs * * *.'
Richards & Simmons has appealed to this court from the judgment against it. Plaintiffs have filed no brief herein in opposition to the appeal; however, defendant Betty Charlton has, as an appellee, appeared and defended against the appeal.
In support of its appeal, the third-party defendant raises three assignments of error as follows:
'1. Third party defendant, appellant herein, asserts that the court below committed prejudicial error when it overruled third party defendant's motion to strike the third party complaint from the file.
'2. Court below committed prejudicial error when it awarded relief not in conformance with the pleadings.
We shall first consider the first and third assignments of error, which are related.
Civ.R. 14(A) provides for the filing by a defendant of a third-party complaint which may bring into the action a person not a party thereto. Specifically, Civ.R. 14(A) provides, in pertinent part:
'* * * At any time after commencement of the action a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. * * *' (Emphasis added.)
The foundation of the third-party complaint must be that the third party is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant filing the third-party complaint.
Charlton's complaint set up an independent cause of action that she allegedly possessed against the third-party defendant but one arising out of the same occurrence upon which plaintiffs' claim against defendant Charlton was predicated. Civ.R. 14(A) does not permit such a third-party complaint.
However, defendant Charlton also sought by her third-party complaint to recover from the third-party defendant Richards & Simmons any judgment that might be rendered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Charlton. This would appear to meet the requirement of Civ.R. 14(A) that the third-party defendant be a person 'who is or may be liable to' defendant Charlton 'for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against' her.
A third-party complaint does not state a claim for relief aganist a third-party defendant merely by alleging that such person is or may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. Rather, it must state a claim for such relief. Essentially, in this case, assuming plaintiffs had a valid claim against defendant Charlton, the claim against the third-party defendant was no more than a demand for contribution from a joint or concurrent tortfeasor. Ohio law does not permit contributions between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southtrust Bank v. Jones, Morrison, Womack
...the third party is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.' State Farm v. Charlton (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 107. "Civ. R. 14 is most commonly employed to join a third party who is liable to the defendant on a theory of contribution or ......
-
Okocha v. Fehrenbacher
...grant relief that Fehrenbacher did not seek against a party she did not sue. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Charlton (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 107, 111, 70 O.O.2d 101, 103-104, 322 N.E.2d 333, 336-337. We find, therefore, that State Auto's first assignment of error has Because we find th......
-
Adamson v. Buckenmeyer
...dependent on the outcome of Adamson's claims against Buckenmeyer. Buckenmeyer also relies on State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Charlton, 41 Ohio App.2d 107, 322 N.E.2d 333, 334 (10th Dist.1974), paragraph one of the syllabus, which supports the foregoing and does not support her argument. {¶......
-
Bair v. Kandel, Case No. 2014CA00072
...of Health v. Paxson, 152 Ohio App.3d 193, 2003-Ohio-1331, 787 N.E.2d 59, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Charlton, 41 Ohio App.2d 107, 109, 322 N.E.2d 333 (10th Dist.1974). "[T]he alleged right of the defendant to recover, or the duty allegedly breached by the third-part......