Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Company case brief summary
588 A.2d 1 (1991)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff victim was injured when a gasoline tank owned by defendant petroleum company, and transported by defendant transporter exploded. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant petroleum company seeking damages. Defendant petroleum company in turn, filed a complaint joining cross-defendant transporter, and cross-defendant contractor as additional defendants. In a separate action plaintiff brought suit against defendant contractor. In a third action, plaintiff petroleum company brought suit against defendant contractor based on an indemnification agreement between the parties.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
All actions were consolidated for trial and plaintiff was awarded a judgment assigning 84% of the negligence to defendant petroleum company and 16% to defendant transporter.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed (except as to delay damages) the lower court judgment awarding plaintiffs, victim and his wife, judgment in a personal injury action. The court held inter alia, that the indemnity clause in defendant petroleum company's contract with cross-defendant contractor was not legally binding because no inference from words of general import could establish such indemnification.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
588 A.2d 1 (1991)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant petroleum company and
cross-defendant contractor filed cross-petitions for review of the
judgment of the Superior Court (Pennsylvania) which awarded
plaintiffs, victim and his wife, judgment in a personal injury
action. Defendant petroleum company sought a determination of whether
an indemnity clause was legally binding, and cross-defendant
contractor contended the trial court erred in admitting testimony of
an expert witness.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff victim was injured when a gasoline tank owned by defendant petroleum company, and transported by defendant transporter exploded. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant petroleum company seeking damages. Defendant petroleum company in turn, filed a complaint joining cross-defendant transporter, and cross-defendant contractor as additional defendants. In a separate action plaintiff brought suit against defendant contractor. In a third action, plaintiff petroleum company brought suit against defendant contractor based on an indemnification agreement between the parties.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
All actions were consolidated for trial and plaintiff was awarded a judgment assigning 84% of the negligence to defendant petroleum company and 16% to defendant transporter.
DISCUSSION
- The losing defendants sought review.
- The court held inter alia, that a contract of indemnity against personal injuries should not be construed to indemnify against the negligence of the indemnitee, unless it was so expressed in unequivocal terms.
- Because the indemnification agreement was written in general terms, the court held that the parties did not intend to indemnify for acts of the indemnitee's negligence.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed (except as to delay damages) the lower court judgment awarding plaintiffs, victim and his wife, judgment in a personal injury action. The court held inter alia, that the indemnity clause in defendant petroleum company's contract with cross-defendant contractor was not legally binding because no inference from words of general import could establish such indemnification.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment