Case Title: Metropolitan Pav. Co. v. Gordon Herkenhoff & Assoc.

Citation: 341 P.2d 460, 66 N.M. 41

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1959-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
341 P.2d 460 (1959) 66 N.M. 41 METROPOLITAN PAVING COMPANY, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, v. GORDON HERKENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. No. 6494. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 8, 1959. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Keleher & McLeod, Russell Moore, Albuquerque, for appellant. Howard F. Houk, Santa Fe, for appellee. LUJAN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting summary judgment for third-party defendant, Gordon Herkenhoff and Associates, Inc., hereafter referred to as Herkenhoff. On October 3, 1957, plaintiffs (who are not parties to this appeal) filed a complaint against the City of Santa Fe, hereinafter referred to as City and the Metropolitan Paving Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Metropolitan. The complaint alleged that sometime prior to August 24, 1957, Metropolitan constructed a detour extending from Alameda Street in the City across the Santa Fe River over which area the City had control. The complaint further alleged that Metropolitan in constructing the detour installed two iron or steel culverts to provide a channel for water flowing down the river, which culverts were then covered with dirt fill and a black-top surface, and that the culverts were so installed as to change the channel of the river and limit its carrying capacity. The complaint went on to allege that due to the negligence of Metropolitan and the City the culverts became clogged and water which would have run down the original channel of the river had the detour not been constructed overflowed causing damage to plaintiffs' properties. The answer by Metropolitan constituted, in effect, a general denial, and as affirmative defenses alleged contributory negligence *461 and that any damage was the result of an "Act of God". In addition, it alleged that if there was any negligence which caused damage to plaintiffs' properties it was negligence on the part of other agents for the City. The City denied generally the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint, and as affirmative defenses alleged contributory negligence, assumption of risk and that any injury or damage to plaintiffs' properties was due to an unavoidable accident or an "Act of God". The City filed a cross-claim against Metropolitan alleging that it had entered into a contract with Metropolitan for the construction of a bridge across the Santa Fe River and that under the terms of this contract Metropolitan had agreed to indemnify and save the City harmless from all suits brought against the City by reason of the construction of the bridge. The City also filed a third-party complaint against Herkenhoff, the engineering firm that had prepared the plans for the construction of the bridge including the detour. The City alleged that Herkenhoff had prepared the plans and in them had specified the type and size of the culverts which Metropolitan subsequently installed. The City further alleged that should it be found that the culverts called for under the Herkenhoff plans and specifications were insufficient, and such insufficiency caused the overflow, as alleged by plaintiffs, then the proximate cause of the damage was the failure of Herkenhoff to properly design the construction and Herkenhoff's failure to require culverts which would be sufficient to carry the water flowing down the Santa Fe River. Thereafter, Metropolitan filed a counterclaim against Herkenhoff with substantially the same allegations as contained in the third-party complaint of the City. Herkenhoff filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint of the City and the counterclaim of Metropolitan, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Attached to and in support of this motion was an affidavit of Gordon Herkenhoff, President of Gordon Herkenhoff & Associates, Inc. The trial court granted Herkenhoff's motion for summary judgment and Metropolitan appeals therefrom. According to the affidavit executed by Herkenhoff (and the facts as stated in this affidavit have not been controverted), a contract was entered into between Metropolitan and the City on March 27, 1957, which contained certain indemnity provisions for the protection of both Herkenhoff and the City. The sole question to be answered on this appeal is whether these indemnity provisions have the effect of relieving the indemnitees from liability for their own negligent acts. Appellant makes no argument that in a case such as this a contract which purports to indemnify a person against his own negligence is void as against public policy. However, he does urge, in effect, that a contract will not be construed as indemnifying the indemnitee against his own negligence unless the contract expressly so provides. Appellee, on the other hand, contends that the contract does not have to refer expressly to indemnitee's negligence as a prerequisite to his being held harmless for his own negligence, so long as the intention to save him harmless in such an eventuality is clear and unequivocal. With this generally accepted rule appellee has no quarrel. Nor do we. See, e.g., Princemont Const. Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 877. Examining the indemnity provisions contained in the contract between Metropolitan and the City of Santa Fe, we find that one such provision is as follows: Further, Herkenhoff's affidavit states as follows: The affidavit also states that a construction bond was required, furnished and conditioned for the protection of appellee Herkenhoff as well as other firms and persons who might be damaged by the work to be done under the contract. In our opinion the all-embracing language used in the indemnity provisions clearly indicates an intention to save harmless the City and its engineer, the appellee, from all liability incurred in the prosecution of the work, even though it might arise out of their own negligence. To us this is sufficient. We do not feel that an express reference to indemnitee's negligence is necessary as a condition precedent to his being held harmless for his own negligence. While the decisions in the various jurisdictions are not entirely harmonious on this question, numerous well-reasoned cases construing indemnity provisions substantially the same as the one here involved support us in our conclusion. The court stated as follows in Stern v. Larocca, 49 N.J. Super. 496, 140 A.2d 403, 407: The Washington court stated this principle as follows in Griffiths v. Henry Broderick, Inc., 27 Wash. 2d 901, 182 P.2d 18, 20, 175 A.L.R. 1: The court then went on to quote the following statement from Southern Pacific Co. v. Fellows, 22 Cal. App. 2d 87, 71 P.2d 75, 77: In the instant case the contractor expressly bound himself to save the indemnitees harmless "from all suits and actions of every nature and description brought * * on account of the construction of this work." Perhaps the "ultimate" unequivocal expression, would have been to add "regardless of negligence on the part of the City or its engineer." However, the better reasoned cases do not require such a phrase when, as here, the intent to cover all damages arising by reason of the construction of the work is clearly manifest. Ruddy v. New York Central Railroad Company, D.C., 124 F. Supp. 470. The 1957 case of Fosson v. Ashland Oil & Refining Company, Ky., 309 S.W.2d 176, 177, involved an indemnity provision much like the one in this case. Certainly it was no broader in scope. It provided that: In holding that the above quoted provision clearly evinced an intention to indemnify the owner against the results of the owner's own negligence, the court stated as follows at page 178: Indemnity provisions substantially identical with that contained in the contract between Metropolitan and the City have been construed as indemnifying the indemnitee against his own negligence in numerous other cases. Russell, for Use of Continental Casualty Co. v. Shell Oil Company, 339 Ill. App. 168, 89 N.E.2d 415; Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 6 Cir., 24 F.2d 347; James Stewart & Co. v. Mobley, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W.2d 290; Princemont Const. Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., D.C.Mun. App., 131 A.2d 877; Buffa v. General Motors Corporation, D.C., 131 F. Supp. 478; Rice v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 861; Fire Association of Philadelphia v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company, D.C., 129 F. Supp. 335. In view of what we have said above, it follows that the lower court properly granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. The judgment is therefore affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, J., and GARNETT R. BURKS, District Judge, concur. McGHEE, Justice (dissenting). The rule proposed by the appellant appears in 175 A.L.R. 30 and reads as follows: A footnote states that there are literally hundreds of cases supporting this proposition and cites the following as illustrating its universal application: Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. Thornley, 10 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 128; Southern R. Co. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 4 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 304; United States v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., D.C.Conn. 1940, 33 F. Supp. 859, reversed on other grounds 2 Cir., 1941, 117 F.2d 503; The Zeller No. 14, D.C.N.Y. 1947, 74 F. Supp. 538; Brandenburg v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist., 1941, 45 Cal. App. 2d 306, 114 P.2d 14; Marshall v. Maryland, D. & V.R. Co., 1921, 1 W.W.Harr. 170, 31 Del. 170, 112 A. 526; Fisk Tire Co. v. Hood Coach Lines, 1936, 54 Ga. App. 401, 188 S.E. 57; Indianapolis, P. & C.R. Co. v. Brownenburg, 1869, 32 Ind. 199; Mitchell v. Southern R. Co., 1903, 124 Ky. 146, 74 S.W. 216, 24 Ky.Law Rep. 2388; Buford v. Sewerage & Water Bd., La. App. 1937, 175 So. 110; New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. T. Stuart & Son Co., 1927, 260 Mass. 242, 157 N.E. 540; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Thornton Bros. Co., 1939, 206 Minn. 193, 288 N.W. 226; Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Hinton, 1939, 233 Mo. App. 1218, 130 S.W.2d 235; Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 1936, 271 N.Y. 36, 2 N.E.2d 35; Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. National Fire Proofing Co., 1931, 39 Ohio App. 1, 176 N.E. 591; Southern Pac. Co. v. Layman, 1944, 173 Or. 275, 145 P.2d 295; Griffiths v. Henry Broderick, Inc., 1947, 27 Wash. 2d 901, 182 P.2d 18, 175 A.L.R. 1; Finkelstein v. Brant, 1929, 198 Wis. 527, 224 N.W. 743; Toronto v. Lambert, 1916, 54 Can SC 200, 33 DLR 476, Ann.Cas. 1918D, 57. The appellees offer a rule adopted by the majority to the effect that negligence need not be expressly referred to if the language used by the parties indicates the intention that negligence of the indemnitee is included in the agreement. The majority seeks to bolster the adoption of the minority rule by saying the cases they cite are the "better reasoned," but I disagree with such statement. Since there are no New Mexico cases on this point, we are free to adopt either rule. I believe the "express negligence" rule is the better reasoned and fairer one, and is much less likely to result in dispute or litigation. There would be no interpretation problems if this rule were adopted. The question would simply be: Is the negligence of the indemnitee expressly referred to? The rationale of this rule was well stated by the court in Perry v. Payne, 1907, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 555, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 1173. The action of the majority in putting the burden of Herkenhoff's negligence on the Metropolitan by interpretation does not appeal to me and as above stated such is the minority rule, and I dissent.