Opinion ID: 1260556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Aaron's Appeal from Judgment in Favor of Associated

Text: Associated also cross-complained for indemnity against Aaron, and the jury found in Associated's favor. This cause of action was based on a different indemnity provision than that relied upon by Able. The provision required Aaron (subcontractor) to hold Associated harmless from all claims for damages to persons... caused by subcontractor or which result from subcontractor's operation or defective work.... The trial court read this provision of the contract to the jury and instructed that if Associated was guilty only of passive as distinguished from active negligence it was entitled to judgment against Aaron. [15] The verdict of the jury in favor of Associated was presumably based upon its finding that Associated had been guilty of only passive negligence. (21a) Aaron makes numerous contentions regarding the propriety of the judgment, but we need not prolong this discussion since we agree that under the evidence here Associated was guilty of active negligence as a matter of law. As we have seen, Associated created a hole in the floor 12 inches square, which was either left uncovered or had a plywood cover with no device to hold it in place, and there was insufficient illumination in the building for safety, all in violation of construction safety orders. Associated's superintendent was on the job at the time of the accident, and there is no claim that Associated was unaware of the existence of the hole or not advised that plaintiffs were working on a rolling scaffold in the building. (22) The question whether an indemnitee's conduct constitutes active or passive negligence depends upon the facts of each case. An exhaustive analysis of the various decisions on the subject, each structured on varying factual circumstances, would therefore not be helpful. However, in several cases in which the indemnitee was found guilty of only passive negligence, its conduct was of a less dynamic type than were Associated's acts in the present case. Thus, passive negligence has been found from the failure to discover a defective condition created by others ( Markley v. Beagle, supra, 66 Cal.2d 951, 956), failure to exercise a right to inspect another's work and to specify changes ( Muth v. Urricelqui (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 901, 911 [60 Cal. Rptr. 166]), and failure to exercise a supervisory right to order removal of defective material ( Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1962) 202 Cal. App.2d 99, 113 [20 Cal. Rptr. 820]). (21b) Here, by contrast, Associated negligently created a condition which was a proximate cause of the accident. The conclusion is inescapable that Associated participated in an affirmative act of negligence which caused the injury and, therefore, its conduct may not be characterized as merely passive.