Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc., 32 N.Y.2d 553 (1973)
When a party delegates responsibility for an activity to another through contract, and an accident occurs related to that activity, the party to whom the duty was delegated may be fully liable and indemnification may apply, precluding apportionment of damages.
Summary
In this case, the New York Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a jury returned an inconsistent verdict, finding a property owner liable for negligence while simultaneously exonerating the contractor responsible for snow and ice removal at the property. The Court held that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent. If the property owner’s liability was based in tort, and the contractor had a contractual obligation to indemnify the property owner or had been delegated all responsibility for the activity causing the accident, there should be no apportionment of damages under Dole v. Dow Chemical Co. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the complaint, and granted a new trial.
Facts
Plaintiffs sued Humble Oil and Refining Co. (Humble) and Scarsdale Landscaping, Inc. (Scarsdale) for damages related to an accident. Humble had contracted with Scarsdale for snow and ice removal and sanding services. The contract included a clause where Scarsdale agreed to indemnify and hold Humble harmless from any loss or damage connected with the work performed. The jury found Humble liable for negligence but exonerated Scarsdale.
Procedural History
The case proceeded to trial, where the jury returned a verdict finding Humble liable but exonerating Scarsdale. Humble had filed a third-party complaint against Scarsdale, seeking indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the complaint, and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the jury verdict was inconsistent in holding Humble liable for negligence while exonerating Scarsdale, given Scarsdale’s contractual obligation to indemnify Humble or the delegation of responsibility for snow and ice removal.
Holding
Yes, because Scarsdale had a contractual obligation to indemnify Humble, or because Humble had delegated all responsibility for whatever caused the accident to Scarsdale. In such a situation, there should be no apportionment of damages.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found the jury’s verdict inconsistent. The court reasoned that if Humble’s liability to the plaintiffs was based on tort, then Scarsdale’s liability to Humble could be based on contract (the indemnity agreement) or tort (negligent performance of the delegated duty). The court cited Dole v. Dow Chemical Co. concerning apportionment of damages among tortfeasors. However, the court emphasized that Dole did not apply where Humble was entitled to recover from Scarsdale either based on the contractual indemnity clause or because Humble had delegated all responsibility for the condition that caused the accident to Scarsdale. In such cases, there should be no apportionment of damages; Scarsdale would be fully liable to indemnify Humble. The court directly referenced its prior decision in Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc., 32 Y 2d 553, 563, 565-566, noting the principles established therein. The court stated that the charge of the court, with respect to the rule of Dole v. Dow Chem. Co. (30 Y 2d 143), was error, because if Humble were entitled on its third-party complaint to recover either on contract indemnity or because it had delegated to Scarsdale all responsibility for whatever caused the accident, there would be no apportionment of damages.