Case Title: Denneler v. Aubel Ditching Service, Inc.

Citation: 203 Kan. 117, 453 P.2d 88

Docket Number: 45,287

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1969-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
203 Kan. 117 (1969)
453 P.2d 88
DANIEL R. DENNELER, Plaintiff,
v.
AUBEL DITCHING SERVICE, INC., WM. F. AUBEL, BETTY J. AUBEL, JOHN R. PFANNENSTIEL, AUBEL ASPHALT, INC., and AUBEL ASPHALT PAVING AND DITCHING SERVICE, Appellants,
v.
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, a corporation, and FOLEY TRACTOR COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Appellees.
No. 45,287

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 12, 1969.
J. Eugene Balloun, of Great Bend, argued the cause, and Lee Turner and Max E. Eberhart, both of Great Bend, were with him on the brief for the appellants.
Thomas J. Berscheidt, of Great Bend, argued the cause, and Tudor Hampton and Jerry Ward, both of Great Bend, were with him on the brief for the appellee, Caterpillar Tractor Company.
*118 Thomas C. Boone, of Hays, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee, Foley Tractor Company, Inc.
No appearance for the plaintiff, Daniel R. Denneler.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, C.J.:
This is an action to recover damages resulting from a highway collision.
The appeal is by the original defendants from an order dismissing their petition against third-party defendants.
On February 9, 1967, plaintiff Denneler filed the action against Aubel Ditching Service, Inc., and other defendants  including John R. Pfannenstiel  the employee of defendants Aubel.
The petition alleged that in the nighttime on or about February 9, 1965, plaintiff, while driving on a highway near Hays, was involved in a collision with a motor grader owned by defendants Aubel and being driven by their employee  defendant Pfannenstiel.
The petition further alleged that the negligence of defendants in the operation of the motor grader was the sole and proximate cause of the collision and resulting injuries, and consisted of the following:
Failure to display the lights required for nighttime as set forth in K.S.A. 8-581; driving and knowingly permitting the motor grader to be driven on the highway in an unsafe and ill-equipped condition in violation of K.S.A. 8-580; failure to equip the road grader with lighting as required by K.S.A. 8-588; failure to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles; failure to use due care; operating the road grader on the highway in negligent disregard of the rights and safety of others; operating the road grader on the highway at the time and place knowing that it could not be seen by other motorists in the nighttime so as to avoid an accident; driving at a rate of speed other than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances; failure to display lights, lamps and illuminating or other warning devices on the road grader so as to warn approaching traffic in time to avoid a wreck, and failure to display and operate lamps or flags at the rear and sides of the road grader as prescribed by K.S.A. 8-585.
Defendants' answer admitted the fact of the collision, but specifically denied plaintiff's allegations of negligence, and alleged that plaintiff's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the collision and resulting injuries.
Later, defendants filed a motion for leave to make Caterpillar Tractor Company and Foley Tractor Co., Inc., parties to the action and that summons and a third-party petition be served upon them.
*119 This motion was allowed, and defendants (as third-party plaintiffs) filed their third-party petition against Caterpillar and Foley as third-party defendants. This petition alleged 
Caterpillar and Foley filed motions to dismiss the third-party petition against them.
During the argument on the motions to dismiss the court remarked that "it is quite possible that the third party defendants will go out unless the plaintiff has a cause against the third parties." In ultimately ruling, however, the court stated 
*120 Accordingly, defendants' third-party petition against Caterpillar and Foley was dismissed.
Defendants have appealed.
Involved here is a provision of K.S.A. 60-214 (a) which reads 
The statute was dealt with in Alseike v. Miller, 196 Kan. 547, 412 P.2d 1007, which was a negligence action arising out of an automobile collision. For a detailed recital of the facts reference is made to the opinion. For our purposes it is sufficient to say that in that case the original defendant sought by way of a third-party petition  to bring into the case parties who were simply alleged joint tort-feasors. On motion of the third-party defendants the third-party petition was dismissed. Defendant appealed from the order of dismissal. This court affirmed  following the rule that in Kansas there is no right of contribution between joint tort-feasors, and that where no right of contribution exists a defendant has no right to bring in under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-214 (a) a joint tort-feasor who was not made a party by the plaintiff.
It also was held that the statute pertains to procedure only and creates no substantive rights, and that third-party practice under the statute is merely a procedural device whereby a party (a defendant) to an action may bring in an additional party and claim against such party because of a claim that is being asserted (by the plaintiff) against the original (a defendant) party.
It was further held that although it is the purpose of the statute to permit the entire controversy to be determined in a single proceeding, it is only the liability of the third-party defendant to the original defendant for the original defendant's liability to the plaintiff that is to be determined.
If, under the allegations of the pleadings in the case before us Caterpillar and Foley were simply joint tort-feasors  then, under the rule of the Alseike case defendants had no right under the statute to bring them in as third-party defendants  and the third-party petition was properly dismissed.
We hold, however, that under the allegations in question Caterpillar and Foley are not to be considered as joint tort-feasors.
*121 In Russell v. Community Hospital Association, Inc., 199 Kan. 251, 428 P.2d 783, plaintiff sued the hospital for personal injuries sustained when he fell on outdoor steps which led to the parking lot. His petition alleged negligence on the part of defendant "in the construction, operation and maintenance of said stairway" upon which his alleged fall occurred.
In its answer defendant specifically denied that it constructed the stairway and denied negligence in the construction, operation and maintenance of it. The answer further alleged that if the stairway was improperly constructed the responsibility therefor was with the general contractor and architect who designed and constructed it.
Thereafter defendant hospital filed a third-party petition against the contractor and architect as third-party defendants alleging that if any negligence as charged by plaintiff was found to exist, it was properly the negligence and responsibility of such third-party defendants.
On motion of the contractor and architect the third-party petition against them was dismissed.
The hospital (original defendant) appealed from the order of dismissal.
This court held that the third-party petition was properly filed and that it was erroneously dismissed. In the syllabus it was held:
In other words, it was held that defendant hospital's claim against the contractor and architect (as third-party defendants) was a claim for indemnity arising out of separate and distinct negligence and not out of a pari delicto relation. Here  as in the Russell case  we are not at liberty to speculate as to what the evidence may eventually establish concerning the alleged negligence of defendants  prior to discovery proceedings and pretrial. The pleadings *122 must be taken at their face value. So construed, we believe that under the rule of the Russell case and the authorities there cited and also in the Alseike case relating to the right of indemnity  the third-party petition before us states a claim for indemnity against the third-party defendants  and therefore was erroneously dismissed.
The order of dismissal is reversed.