Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Pitcavage v. Mastercraft Boat Co.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureThird-Party PracticeImpleaderCross-ClaimsCounterclaimsMotion to DismissFed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g)

Facts

Plaintiffs alleged they were injured when a Mastercraft boat struck a Baja boat and sued Mastercraft and Baja on negligence, strict liability, and warranty theories. Mastercraft filed a third-party complaint against the owners and operator of the Mastercraft boat, alleging they negligently caused or contributed to the accident and were liable to Mastercraft for all or part of any recovery by plaintiffs. Third-party defendant Ralph Turner then asserted a cross-claim and counterclaim against plaintiffs, including a claim for damage to his boat. Plaintiffs also amended their complaint to assert claims under the Consumer Product Safety Act based on the boats involved.

Issue

Whether Mastercraft could implead the owners and operator of the Mastercraft boat under Rule 14(a) for contribution or indemnity, whether Turner could assert claims against plaintiffs in the form pleaded, and whether plaintiffs stated a CPSA claim involving boats allegedly outside CPSC regulatory authority.

Rule

Rule 14(a) permits impleader only when the third-party defendant is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim, and the third-party plaintiff must have a substantive basis for contribution or indemnity; impleader is improper if the allegation is only that the third party is solely liable to the plaintiff. Under Pennsylvania law, contribution is available among joint tortfeasors, and parties are joint tortfeasors when they act together or, though acting independently, their acts unite to cause a single, indivisible injury. A Rule 13(g) cross-claim lies only against a coparty, while Rule 14(a) allows a third-party defendant to assert a claim against the plaintiff arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. A CPSA § 2072 claim requires a product within the Commission's authority, and boats excluded from CPSC authority cannot support such a claim.

🔒

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 federal court in Pennsylvania, Nina Flores sues Keystone Lift Systems, a forklift manufacturer, for injuries she suffered when a forklift tipped over in a warehouse in Allentown. Keystone files a third-party complaint against warehouse supervisor Owen Burke, alleging only that Burke alone caused the accident and that Keystone is not liable to Nina at all.

Should the court permit Keystone's third-party complaint under Rule 14(a)?

Explanation. Rule 14(a) permits impleader only when the third-party defendant is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. It is not proper if the defendant merely alleges that the third party is solely liable to the plaintiff. Here, Keystone's pleading disclaims derivative liability and asserts only sole responsibility by Burke, so impleader should be denied. (Derived from Pitcavage v. Mastercraft Boat Co. (n.d.).)