Erkins v. Case Power & Equipment Co.
Facts
Plaintiff's decedent was killed at a construction site after falling from the bucket of a backhoe and being run over. Plaintiff sued Case, the backhoe manufacturer, on a strict products liability failure-to-warn theory, alleging inadequate warnings about riding in the bucket. Case denied responsibility but sought contribution from Fitzpatrick and ECRACOM, alleging their negligence in failing to conduct safety meetings contributed to the accident. Plaintiff had not sued Fitzpatrick or ECRACOM.
Issue
May a defendant sued in strict products liability implead nonparties under Rule 14(a) for contribution based on negligence when all alleged tortfeasors may be liable for the same injury? Does the fact that plaintiff did not sue the proposed third-party defendants, and that the theories of liability differ, bar impleader?
Rule
Rule 14(a) permits impleader only when the proposed third-party defendant may be liable to the defendant derivatively or secondarily, typically through contribution or indemnity. Under the New Jersey Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act, contribution is available among persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury, and they need not be liable under the same theory of tort liability. In deciding whether to allow impleader, courts consider timeliness, potential complication of issues, probability of trial delay, and prejudice to the plaintiff.
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
Test yourself
Should the court permit impleader under Rule 14(a)?