Markvicka v. Brodhead-Garrett Co.
Facts
A minor plaintiff sued Brodhead-Garrett Company for severe injuries allegedly caused by a defectively designed and conditioned jointer machine manufactured by Brodhead-Garrett. Brodhead-Garrett then filed a third-party complaint against the School District of Ralston, alleging the accident occurred during a woodworking class run by the School District. The third-party complaint alleged that improper maintenance of the machine and inadequate supervision of students by the School District caused the plaintiff's injuries. Although the complaint was framed as one for indemnity, the court concluded the allegations more accurately stated a claim for contribution.
Issue
Whether a defendant may maintain a Rule 14(a) third-party complaint against an alleged concurrent tortfeasor for contribution before any joint judgment has been entered, and whether dismissal is proper when the defendant has mislabeled the claim as indemnity rather than contribution.
Rule
Under Nebraska law, contribution is available among negligent joint tortfeasors, and Rule 14(a) permits impleader of a party who is or may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. When the pleaded facts show possible concurrent negligence creating potential contribution liability, impleader is proper even though contribution may not be enforceable until judgment and payment; a complaint should not be dismissed merely because it incorrectly labels the theory as indemnity if facts could support relief under contribution.
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
Riverbend moves to dismiss, arguing contribution is unavailable because no judgment has yet been entered against Prairie Forge. How should the court rule?