Court Opinion

ID: 9705071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:55:49.501479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.729470
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with either the reasoning or the result attained by the majority in part II of its opinion.
Distilled to its essence, the majority’s decision establishes a rule that precludes indemnitors from raising meritorious defenses to an indemnitee’s action merely because they are raised by a modification of pleadings or tried by implied consent after the indemnitee has settled with the principal plaintiff. This ignores the determinative question: has the indemnitee been given an opportunity to fairly litigate the defense raised by the indemnitor?
The majority finds prejudice to the indemnitee . (Ferguson) from its prior settlement with the principal plaintiff. However that settlement is irrelevant to the merits of the indemnitor’s (Moskovitz’s) defense and whether the indemnitee had a fair opportunity to litigate those merits. Further, the majority appears to overlook the clear import of the authority it quotes in support of its position. Reference to that authority discloses that the resultant prejudice must relate to the party’s being precluded from a fair trial, not whether that party may lose on the merits.
Only the amount of liability was determined by Ferguson’s settlement. The ensuing trial would determine who was legally responsible for payment.
In that trial testimony was presented showing Ferguson’s general superintendent was advised of the dangerously inadequate barricades utilized. Notwithstanding Ferguson’s knowledge of that *185dangerous condition, no remedial measures were instituted. In response, Ferguson offered testimony in an attempt to show that the practicalities of construction excused its use of inadequate barricades.
Surely a question of willful and wanton negligence was presented by the foregoing testimony. A jury could readily find that the protection of human life warranted some inconvenience in construction procedures so that more effective barricades could, and should, be utilized. Moreover, the jury could find that failure to utilize effective barricades, after Ferguson knew of the dangerous condition, constituted willful and wanton negligence. I conclude that it was error for the trial judge to preclude the trier of fact from considering this issue.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.