Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart

Supreme Court of California · 1978 · Torts

Tortscomparative indemnitystrict products liabilitycontributioncomparative faultcomparative indemnitystrict liabilitynegligence

Facts

Plaintiff was injured in a Safeway supermarket when the shopping cart she was using broke and fell on her foot. She sued Safeway, the owner of the cart, Nest-Kart, the manufacturer, and another company that had sometimes repaired carts, alleging strict liability and negligence; the jury found plaintiff and the repair company not responsible. The jury found Safeway liable on both negligence and strict liability theories, Nest-Kart liable solely on strict liability, and allocated comparative fault 80 percent to Safeway and 20 percent to Nest-Kart. After the judgment was initially satisfied on that 80-20 basis, Safeway sought additional contribution so each defendant would bear 50 percent, and the trial court granted that request.

Issue

May liability between joint tortfeasors be apportioned on a comparative fault basis when one defendant is strictly liable in product liability and the other defendant is liable at least in part for negligence? Also, may the comparative equitable indemnity doctrine recognized in American Motorcycle be applied in this case even though the trial occurred before that decision?

Rule

Under California's common law equitable indemnity doctrine as modified by American Motorcycle, liability among joint tortfeasors may be apportioned on a comparative fault basis rather than only pro rata. That comparative indemnity doctrine applies not only among multiple negligent tortfeasors, but also between a strictly liable defendant and a negligent defendant. Where the issue was properly preserved and comparative fault findings were made, the doctrine may be applied to cases tried after Li but before American Motorcycle.

🔒

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 San Diego, Maya Ortiz was injured when a display ladder at a home-goods store collapsed. She sued Harbor Lantern Retail, which had ignored repeated reports that the ladder was wobbling, and Sierra Forge Equipment, the ladder's manufacturer, whose design defect made the ladder unreasonably dangerous. The jury found Harbor Lantern liable for negligence and Sierra Forge liable only on strict products liability, and assigned 75% responsibility to Harbor Lantern and 25% to Sierra Forge.

If Harbor Lantern paid more than its proportionate share and seeks reallocation, which result is most consistent with the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that comparative equitable indemnity permits partial indemnity based on comparative fault or responsibility, and that the doctrine applies between a negligent defendant and a strictly liable defendant. The existence of strict liability on one side does not require either full shifting or equal division. The jury's allocation should be used if properly obtained.