Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that building supply company whose employee’s negligence in avoiding automobile contributed to accident between two trucks could not recover indemnification from automobile driver
• noting that secondary liability can “aris[e] . . . because of a failure to discover or correct a defect or remedy a dangerous condition caused by the act of the one primarily responsible.”
• reasoning that indemnity is based upon “a difference in the character or kind of the wrongs which cause[d] the injury and in the nature of the legal obligation owed by each of the wrongdoers”
• discussing indemnity rights in the context of primary and secondary liability and types of negligence, i.e., passive and active
• implying Builders could have argued, in its original negligence trial, that it was not negligent because it reacted reasonably to the third party’s erratic driving
• rejecting a plaintiff’s claim for indemnity because of proof of the plaintiff’s fault in causing the injury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).