Court Opinion

ID: 9483967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:36:55.309448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:56.727235
License: Public Domain

WALTER, District Judge,
specially concurring:
I would concur with the opinion of Judge Wiener in every respect, but I would reach the result in a single leap.
The district court, with flawless logic, held that Anheuser was not entitled to indemnification because Force was only required to indemnify Anheuser for claims for injuries caused by an act or omission of Force, a possibility precluded by the jury finding that McDaniel was the sole cause of his injuries.1 Anheuser’s indemnity clause is not ambiguous. The plain wording requires Force to indemnify Anheuser for claims and costs of defense, if, but only if, such injuries were caused by an act or omission of Force. The jury found that McDaniel’s injuries were caused 100% by his own negligence; that neither Anheuser nor the Railroad caused McDaniel’s injuries. A determination that Anheuser was a cause of the injury was a sine qua non for *311any finding of causation by Force.2 The finding by the jury of 0% cause against Anheuser is determinative. It is impossible that Force caused anything. To hold otherwise would risk conflicting findings of fact within the same ease.
Assuming, as we have, that this indemnity clause governed the relationship between Anheuser and Force, there is nothing further to litigate. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is correct.

. In its opinion, the district court stated that summary judgment for Force was appropriate because "there was no act or omission found by the jury that was attributable to Force.” The court based this determination on the jury’s *311findings that McDaniel was "100% liable for his own injury” and "100% at fault."

. But not vice versa; Anheuser could have been held liable without fault/cause on the part of Force.