Vroegh v. J & M FORKLIFT

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because the contribution defendant had no duty to the underlying plaintiff, it was not subject to liability in tort within the meaning of the Contribution Act
• describing fireman's rule as an implied primary assumption of risk \whether an owner or occupier of land has any duty to fire fighters injured\
• one who had not committed a wrongful act was not “subject to liability” for purposes of a contribution statute
• An affirmative defense admits the legal sufficiency of the cause of action but asserts new matter by which the plaintiff’s right to recovery is defeated.
• affirmative defense admits the allegations of the complaint but raises affirmative matter that defeats the claim
• one who had not committed a wrongful act was not “subject to liability” for purposes of a contribution statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).