Court Opinion

ID: 9728273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:03:36.075139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.293080
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DOWNING specially concurring: My opinion before the court answered the question “no” as to “whether a cause of action for active-passive indemnity exists in Blinois in light of the Contribution Statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 70 sec. 301 et seq.” Before proceeding with the additional comments, may I point out that it is not unprecedented for a separate concurrence to be written by the author of an opinion. See, e.g., Justice Brennan’s concurrence to the Brennan opinion for the court in Abbate v. United States (1959), 359 U.S. 187, 196, 3 L. Ed. 2d 729, 735, 79 S. Ct. 666, 671; accord, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander (1949), 337 U.S. 562, 576, 93 L. Ed. 1544, 1553, 69 S. Ct. 1291, 1299, where Justice Jackson noted, “It cannot be suggested that in cases where the author is the mere instrument of the Court he must forego expression of his own convictions.” See also Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978), 22 Cal. 3d 584, 595, 586 P.2d 916, 923, 150 Cal. Rptr. 435, 442. In my opinion, I believe that with the passage of the Contribution Act, it is reasonable to conclude that the legislature intended that, without qualification, implied indemnity should no longer exist. I see no reason to distinguish between vicarious liability, indemnity in tort cases, or cases alleging “upstream” strict liability.