Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Toberman v. Copas

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 1992 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureThird-Party PracticePleadingFRCP 14impleaderthird-party complaintderivative liabilityindemnity

Facts

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging negligence and loss of consortium based on a May 26, 1990 motor vehicle accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Defendant Menendez then filed a third-party complaint against Swarthout and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company. The key allegation stated that if Menendez were held liable, then the accident, injuries, and damages were caused by the negligence of the third-party defendants, who were solely liable to plaintiffs or, alternatively, jointly and severally liable, entitling Menendez to contribution and/or indemnification. The third-party complaint itself contained essentially no factual allegations describing what the third-party defendants did or how they were connected to the accident.

Issue

Whether Menendez's third-party complaint was a proper impleader under Rule 14 when it alleged the third-party defendants were solely responsible for plaintiffs' injuries and also sought contribution or indemnification without alleging a basis for derivative liability. Whether the complaint also failed Rule 8 because it lacked factual allegations sufficient to give fair notice of the claim and its grounds.

Rule

Under Rule 14, a defendant may implead only a person who is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim; the third-party complaint must assert secondary or derivative liability, such as indemnity or contribution recognized by substantive law, and may not merely allege that the third-party defendant is directly or solely liable to the plaintiff. Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and must provide fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests through at least general allegations of the relevant circumstances, occurrences, and events; if relying on another pleading, the party must explicitly incorporate it by reference.

🔒

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 Pittsburgh, Leah Moreno sued Daniel Pike for negligence after a warehouse collision. Daniel then filed a third-party complaint against Owen Kerr alleging Owen alone caused Leah's injuries and is the proper party to pay Leah.

Is Daniel's impleader of Owen proper under Rule 14?

Explanation. Rule 14 permits impleader only of a person who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. A claim that the third party is the one truly liable to the original plaintiff is merely a defense and not a proper third-party claim. The majority opinion stressed that a defendant may not use impleader simply to point to a different proper defendant. (Derived from Toberman v. Copas (n.d.).)