Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortplaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilityindemnitystatuteappealtrial
tortplaintiffnegligenceliabilityindemnityappealsummary judgmentwilladoption

Related Cases

Krinitt v. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, 159 Idaho 125, 357 P.3d 850
View Case »
Woodruff v. Tomlin, 616 F.2d 924
View Case »
Carnegay v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 353 Ga.App. 656, 839 S.E.2d 176
View Case »
Kelley v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 110 N.H. 369, 268 A.2d 837
View Case »
Baker-Smith v. Skolnick, 37 Cal.App.5th 340, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 514, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6694, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6479
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing and Drain SSS, 368 P.3d 389, 2016-NMSC-009

Facts

Briana Fierro and her baby suffered injuries when a diaper changing table installed by Rooter in a Safeway store collapsed due to improper installation. The plaintiffs initially sued Safeway for negligence, later adding Rooter as a defendant. Safeway filed a cross-claim against Rooter for indemnification, but the district court ruled in favor of Rooter, stating that the indemnification agreement was void under New Mexico law. The case proceeded to trial against Safeway, where the jury found both parties negligent.

Safeway owns and operates a grocery store in Gallup, New Mexico. Thirteen months after Rooter installed a diaper changing table in Safeway's Gallup store bathroom, Briana Fierro and her baby, Jaye Fierro (Plaintiffs), suffered personal injuries when the changing table became dislodged and fell from the wall because the butterfly bolts were apparently installed backwards.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether traditional indemnification was available under New Mexico's comparative fault system and whether the contractual indemnification provision between Safeway and Rooter was enforceable.

The central issue is whether the right to traditional indemnification is available notwithstanding New Mexico's adoption of comparative fault where the jury compared and apportioned fault among concurrent tortfeasors.

Rule

The court ruled that traditional indemnity does not apply when a jury finds a tortfeasor actively at fault and apportions liability using comparative fault principles. Additionally, the contractual indemnification provision was found to be void under New Mexico's anti-indemnification statute.

We hold that traditional indemnity does not apply when the jury finds a tortfeasor actively at fault and apportions liability using comparative fault principles.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between traditional indemnification and New Mexico's comparative fault system, concluding that since the jury found both Safeway and Rooter at fault, traditional indemnification was not applicable. The court also examined the contractual agreement between the parties and determined that it violated the state's anti-indemnification statute, rendering it unenforceable.

The district court found as a matter of law that there is no dispute that Safeway will not have to pay for any negligence that is found to have been committed by Rooter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that Safeway was not entitled to indemnification from Rooter.

Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

Who won?

Rooter 2000 Plumbing and Drain SSS prevailed in the case because the court found that traditional indemnification was not applicable and that the contractual indemnification provision was void under New Mexico law.

Rooter argues that because it satisfied its proportionate share of negligence with the Plaintiffs, and because Safeway was never held liable for Rooter's negligence, Safeway does not have a right to traditional indemnification against Rooter.

You must be