Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991 · Torts

TortsIndemnityExpert testimonyLoss of earning capacityindemnityindemnitee negligenceclear and unequivocal languagegeneral words insufficient

Facts

The Zinssers contracted with Butler Petroleum to refurbish their gas station, and the agreement included an indemnity clause requiring the Zinssers to indemnify Butler for liabilities arising from leakage, fire, explosion, or other casualty related to the equipment or premises. Butler arranged for used fiberglass gasoline tanks to be delivered to the station and for AMG Sign Company employee Gary Ruzzi to remove an old sign and install a new one. One tank had a hole in the top and still contained 50 to 100 gallons of gasoline, but neither Ruzzi nor Zinsser realized this. While using a torch to cut rusted bolts from the existing sign, Ruzzi ignited fumes escaping from the tank, causing an explosion and injury.

Issue

First, did the indemnity clause in the Butler-Zinsser agreement require the Zinssers to indemnify Butler Petroleum for liability caused by Butler's own negligence? Second, did the trial court err in admitting expert testimony on Ruzzi's diminished earning capacity?

Rule

In Pennsylvania, an indemnity contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against liability for its own negligence unless the contract expresses that intent in clear and unequivocal terms; no inference from words of general import will suffice. A witness may testify as an expert if he has a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge beyond ordinary lay knowledge, and expert testimony on diminished earning capacity is admissible when grounded in the plaintiff's medical restrictions, work history, and other adequate foundation. Loss of earning capacity concerns whether the plaintiff's economic horizon has been shortened, not whether current wages equal pre-injury wages.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Nora Whitfield leased warehouse space from Lakeview Storage Group. The lease required Nora to "defend, indemnify, and hold harmless" Lakeview from "any and all claims, losses, and injuries arising out of the use, maintenance, or condition of the premises." A delivery driver was injured solely because Lakeview negligently failed to repair a collapsing loading dock.

If Lakeview seeks indemnity from Nora for the judgment entered against Lakeview, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. An indemnity agreement will not be construed to cover the indemnitee's own negligence unless that intent is stated in clear and unequivocal language. Words of general import such as "any and all claims" are insufficient. Because the injury resulted solely from Lakeview's own negligence and the clause does not expressly cover that negligence, indemnity is unavailable.