Court Opinion

ID: 9632394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:13:01.703066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:14.922878
License: Public Domain

WARREN, P. J.,
concurring.
This case is not unlike a case in which tort liability is assumed by, or imposed on, a nontortfeasor with a right to indemnity. A corporation can be held vicariously liable, as a matter of law, for the negligence of its employees. The corporation then has a right of indemnification, as a matter of law, against its negligent servant. See, e.g., United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 273 Or 283, 292, 541 P2d 448 (1975). Whether defendants will or will not have a complete remedy against Segerstrom is irrelevant to the issues between plaintiff and defendant.
The majority is correct. Only if the action could not proceed against defendants without joining Segerstrom should this action be dismissed. It is undisputed that Turn-bull is the successor in interest of Segerstrom and that he expressly assumed Segerstrom’s liability. Here, all of plaintiffs rights may be fully litigated against Turnbull and his corporation, Rescue 3, Inc. We need inquire no further than that. Segerstrom’s presence in the action as a party is unnecessary.
I concur.