Teepak, Inc. v. Learned

How courts have described this case

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

• holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim, properly was for contribution
• characterizing claim for indemnity against negligent physician as one for contribution and “holding that original tortfeasor was not entitled to recover either indemnity or contribution under Kansas’ comparative negligence statute
• even though Teepak, the manufacturer of a claimed defective product, and Learned, the allegedly negligent treating physician, were not “strictly speaking, parties to the same occurrence”
• cannot make a claim for comparative implied indemnity when person against whom defendant seeks contribution was not joined as a party
• “whether the action is barred by Teepak’s failure to institute an action against Learned prior to the running of the statute of limitations relative to medical malpractice is rendered moot”
• \The equitable need for contribution vanishes when one tortfeasor has the statutory right to bring other tortfeasors into the action as defendants and have fault (and liability) proportionally determined.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).