Opinion ID: 1827161
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: nature of appeal

Text: Based on its agreement with Kaiser, Union Pacific sued Kaiser on account of the railroad's settlement of claims which arose out of a train-vehicle collision in which one of Kaiser's customers sustained property damage and a Kaiser employee sustained bodily injury. In its amended petition, Union Pacific claimed that injuries to Kaiser's employee and property damage to Kaiser's customer were caused by negligent acts or omissions of Kaiser, specifically alleged Kaiser's negligent conduct, such as failure to provide precautionary measures to avoid or prevent the accident, and asserted that Kaiser knew, or should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care that its conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm to Kaiser's employee who was hurt in the accident. Union Pacific's petition concluded with a prayer for indemnification of $95,000. Kaiser answered, denied it was negligent, and alleged that any damages from the accident were caused by Union Pacific's active negligence in contrast with Kaiser's negligence, which was passive only. Each party moved for summary judgment to dispose of the liability question under their agreement. Finding that Union Pacific was entitled to contribution pursuant to the agreement with Kaiser, the district court granted summary judgment to the railroad, overruled Kaiser's motion for summary judgment, and, in a subsequent bench trial, determined that the settlements achieved by Union Pacific were reasonable and in good faith. Because Union Pacific had admitted some negligence regarding the accident, the district court concluded that Union Pacific was entitled to indemnification of 50 percent of the settlements rather than for full indemnity and awarded a $47,500 judgment to the railroad. Kaiser contends that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-148 (Reissue 1984) of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act immunizes Kaiser from liability outside the compensation act concerning an injury to a Kaiser employee, and, therefore, Kaiser is not liable to Union Pacific under the indemnity agreement for rail service. Kaiser also contends that there is no negligence on its part which renders Kaiser liable for indemnification under the agreement with Union Pacific. Finally, Kaiser claims that the settlements by Union Pacific were not reasonable and in good faith. Union Pacific contends the issue of negligence is irrelevant to recovery under the indemnity agreement with Kaiser. A summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact or the ultimate inferences deducible from such fact or facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wibbels v. Unick, 229 Neb. 184, 426 N.W. 2d 244 (1988); Lowry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 228 Neb. 171, 421 N.W.2d 775 (1988). In appellate review of a summary judgment, the court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. See Ford v. American Medical International, 228 Neb. 226, 422 N.W.2d 67 (1988).