Court Opinion

ID: 9578432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:45:13.860072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:19.696552
License: Public Domain

*93Lewis, Justice
(concurring).
I agree that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed but upon somewhat different grounds from those stated in the opinion of Justice Bussey. His opinion contains a complete statement of the issues and the facts, and repetition in detail here is unnecessary.
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written contract whereby the defendant agreed to perform certain work for the plaintiff. It was expressly agreed that the defendant would perform the work in a goo.d, proper and workmanlike manner, and that the defendant would indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless “from any and all claims for damages to persons and/or property arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of any woyk” covered by the contract. The defendant undertook to perform certain work for the plaintiff under the contract but failed to do it in a workmanlike manner. Because of the negligent manner in which the defendant performed the work, a Mrs. Brant suffered personal injuries, for which the plaintiff was required to pay the sum of $36,000.00. The record abundantly sustains the findings of the lower court that the defendant failed to perform work under its contract with the plaintiff in a workmanlike manner and that the plaintiff has been damaged as a result thereof in the amount sought in this action.
This action is not based upon any claimed right of indemnity from a joint toyt-feasor. Rather, it is an action to recover, under the foregoing written indemnity agreement, damages sustained by the plaintiff from the failure of the defendant to perform its express contractual obligation to do the work undertaken in a proper manner.
Since liability here is bottomed upop. the contractual obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff, the general rule, adopted in the recent case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Whetstone, 243 S. C. 61, 132 S. E. (2d) 172, that there can be no indemnity among mere joint tort-feasors, *94is inapplicable. Therefore, we are not here concerned with the respective liabilities of the plaintiff and the defendant to the injured party, Mrs. Brant, and may assume that they were joint tort-feasors. Our inquiry concerns solely the rights and obligations of the plaintiff and defendant under the written indemnity contract.
Under the contract, the defendant warranted that the work would be done in a proper manner. The defendant failed to perform the work as it warranted and solely created the condition out of which the injuries to Mrs. Brant arose. Clearly, the claim for damages here arose out of, and was connected with, the improper wo,rk done by the defendant while working for the plaintiff under the contract.
The defendant argues, however, that it should be relieved of any obligation to indemnify the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to inspect and discover the faulty work of the defendant before Mrs. Brant received her injuries about four years later. As between the plaintiff and the defendant, the failure of the plaintiff, under the facts of this case, to, discover and correct the defendant’s breach of contract cannot excuse such breach and defeat the claim of the plaintiff. See: Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, 350 U. S. 124, 76 S. Ct. 232, 100 L. Ed. 133. The defective and potentially dangerous condition of the premises, resulting fropi the faulty work of the defendant, was not subject to detection by reasonable inspection at the time of the completion of the job. Therefore, there was no acceptance of the work by the plaintiff so as to relieve the defendant of its contractual obligations. The nature of the work done by the defendant was such as to cause the dangerous condition in the premises to result at a later date and, therefore, postpone any injurious result from the failure to perform the work as agreed. The plaintiff at no time, prior to the injury of Mrs. Brant, knew of the faulty work of the defendant or the dangerous condition which resulted therefrom. Under the circumstances here, the fact that damage from the faulty *95work did not result until about four years later does not relieve the defendant of its contractual obligation to indemnify the plaintiff.
Taylor, C. J., and Moss, J., concur.