Cooper v. Watson

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971 · Property

Propertyindemnityretroactivity of statutesbailmentretroactivityindemnityworkers' compensationemployer liability

Facts

Plaintiff Cooper was injured on December 12, 1968, at Miller's service station when Gibson, another Miller employee, allegedly negligently drove Watson's automobile into him while Cooper directed the car's movement. Cooper received workers' compensation benefits from Miller's insurer and later sued Watson for personal injuries. After being sued, Watson brought a third-party indemnity claim against Miller on December 16, 1969. Miller moved for summary judgment, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 10, effective September 1, 1969, barred any indemnity claim absent a preinjury written agreement.

Issue

Does Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 10, effective September 1, 1969, bar an unliquidated third-party indemnity claim against an employer when the employee's injury occurred before the statute's effective date? More specifically, may the statute be applied to antecedent injuries simply because the indemnity action was commenced after the statute became effective?

Rule

No statute may be construed to operate retroactively unless the legislature clearly and manifestly intended that result. Accordingly, Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 10, applies only to indemnity claims arising from employee injuries occurring on or after September 1, 1969, and does not bar unliquidated indemnity claims based on injuries that occurred before that date.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Duluth, Nora Kim was injured on August 15, 1969 while working for North Harbor Repair. She later sued Lena Ortiz, the owner of a van being serviced at the shop, and Lena filed a third-party indemnity claim against North Harbor Repair in October 1969; no written indemnity agreement had been executed before the injury.

Is Lena's indemnity claim barred by a statute that became effective September 1, 1969 and provides that an employer has no duty to reimburse or hold a third party harmless absent a preinjury written agreement?

Explanation. The controlling event is the date of the employee's injury, not the later filing date of the third-party action. Absent clear and manifest legislative intent for retroactive application, the statute applies only to indemnity claims arising from injuries on or after its effective date. Because the injury occurred before September 1, 1969, the claim is not barred.