Court Opinion

ID: 9541983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:30:24.291479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:37.846501
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE HALLETT specially concurring: While I fully concur in the foregoing opinion holding that indemnity is barred because both, were “actively” negligent, I am constrained to add another basis for denying recovery on the counterclaim for indemnity. Reynolds v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 51 Ill.App.2d 334, 201 N.E.2d 322, and Trzos v. Berman Leasing Co., 86 Ill.App.2d 176, 229 N.E.2d 787, and Sargent v. Interstate Bakeries, 86 Ill.App.2d 187, 229 N.E.2d 769, both of which cited and followed Reynolds in reversing me, all held, at least in the pleading state, that one driver, alleging that he was only “passively” negligent, involved in an automobile accident, is entitled to be indemnified (for a bona fide settlement or judgment) by another allegedly “actively” negligent driver involved in the same accident, even though the drivers had no relationship whatsoever one to the other prior to said accident. Apparently the rationale of these cases is to “mitigate” the supposedly “harsh” Illinois rule barring contribution between joint tortfeasors. (See Muhlbauer v. Kruzel, 39 Ill.2d 226, 234 N.E.2d 790; and Carver v. Grossman, 55 Ill.2d 507.) As I have said before, I disagree with this attempted solution and am of the considered opinion that this line of cases has caused and is still causing difficulties in the trial and reviewing courts out of all proportion to the supposed “harsh” rule it is supposed to “mitigate.” It should also be noted that Reynolds, Trzos and Sargent were all decided before the Supreme Court handed down Muhlbauer v. Kruzel, (the “clown” case), 39 Ill.2d 226, 234 N.E.2d 790. There the court cited this line of appellate cases and although it did not expressly overrule them, it did overrule them by implication in that it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a third-party complaint for indemnity because such a complaint (page 231): “* * * must disclose some relationship upon which a duty to indemnify may be predicated.” In the case at bar, there was absolutely no relationship between Silver-cup and the C.T.A. before the accident and I would therefore affirm even had Silvercup not been “actively” negligent.