Court Opinion

ID: 9616624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:48:14.945339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:59.295602
License: Public Domain

Haden, Chief Justice,

concurring:

I respectfully concur with the opinion of the majority. I am in agreement with the underlying rationale of the *807decision that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow impleader under third party practice where combined litigation of separate and distinct issues may create confusion and cause undue implication of the litigation.
In resolving the case, however, the majority unequivocally states a proposition which is not the law of this jurisdiction: “a joint tort-feasor cannot implead a third party defendant who is a joint tort-feasor under Rule 14(a).” It is true that, pursuant to W. Va. Code 1931, 55-7-13, a joint tort-feasor cannot secure contribution from a joint tort-feasor in absence of a joint judgment obtained against both. Wolfe v. Johnson, 21 F.R.D. 280 (N.D. W. Va. 1958); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Saunders, 159 F.2d 481 (4th Cir. 1947). On the other hand, a person may be liable to another on a basis other than as a joint tort-feasor subject to contribution by statute. For example, in Goldring v. Ashland Oil & Ref. Co., 59 F.R.D. 487 (N.D. W. Va. 1973), Judge Maxwell refused to dismiss a crossclaim against an alleged joint tort-feasor because there is a common-law right of idemnity between joint tort-feasors in West Virginia, in addition to the statutory right of contribution. Likewise, in the instant appeal, the Housing Authority alleged negligence, breach of implied and expressed warranties and sought indemnification against Boggess in its third party claim. I am unaware of any substantive rule of law which forbids the assertion of these claims, or others not mentioned, against a person who is or may be liable to the Housing Authority.
Consequently, while this Court properly determined not to disturb the discretion exercised by the trial court, we should not appear to hold that joint tort-feasors are prohibited by statute from impleading alleged joint tort-feasors merely because the plaintiff has not sued the party sought to be impleaded.
As I read Rule 14(a), W. Va. R.C.P., a defendant may implead “a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him[,]” subject to the discretion of the *808trial court. Accordingly, a defendant should be permitted to assert claims allowable under the substantive law of this State by impleader, as authorized by Rule 14, id., without regard to the fact that plaintiff may have chosen not to sue the party to be impleaded as a joint tort-feasor. The courts of this State are open to every person for injury done to him so as to provide a remedy by due course of law. W. Va. Const., Art. Ill, § 17.