17 Ariz. App. 428 - Transcon Lines v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 61 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The duty to indemnify may arise, and indemnity may be allowed in those fact situations where in equity and good conscience the burden of the judgment should be shifted from the shoulders of the person seeking indemnity to the one from whom indemnity is sought. The right depends upon the principle that everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own wrong, and if others have been compelled to pay damages which ought to have been paid by the wrongdoer, they may recover from him. Thus the determination of whether or not indemnity should be allowed must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case... ." ( 8 A.L.R.3d 634 ). * * * * * * "... Although the original negligence of Herrero may be regarded in law as a proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent malpractice of the cross-defendants, and the plaintiff may recover a joint and several judgment against all who are found liable, there is no reason why the ultimate burden of damages should not be distributed among the various defendants, and each be made to bear that portion of the judgment which in equity and good conscience should be borne by him. Here, Herrero has had no part in the selection of any of the cross-defendant doctors or hospital. Nothing appears to indicate that he was even aware of the decedent's decision to submit to surgery. He has had no control or direction over the conduct of the cross-defendants and not the slightest opportunity to protect himself against their negligence, yet he”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 N.J. Super. 182 - New Milford Bd. of Educ. v. Juliano · 302 So. 2d 187 - Stuart v. Hertz Corporation

2. “"It must be remembered that indemnity is an all or nothing proposition damage-wise, and hence should be an all or nothing proposition fault-wise. Apportionment of damages is not contemplated by it. .. . Stated in the positive the cases mean simply that indemnity between tortfeasors is allowable only where the whole of the fault was in the one against whom indemnity is sought."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Ariz. App. 254 - Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Scottsdale · Stuart v. Hertz Corp.

3. ““Appellant did not seek contribution, however, apparently recognizing that Arizona adheres to the rule denying contribution among joint tortfeasors. This is a harsh doctrine, and its harshness has been explained by Justice Learned Hand as giving rise to ‘lenient exceptions’ in the form of rules of indemnity [citations omitted]. There are solutions to this problem, but they are not for us to fashion. Our legislature could follow the course of at least eight other states and adopt the Uniform Contribution Among Joint-tortfeasors Act [citations omitted]. Or our supreme court could follow the path of at least nine other jurisdictions and allow contribution by judicial decision. [citations omitted] Until either of these events occurs, however, we do not deem it appropriate to create ‘lenient exceptions’ in favor of tortfeasors whose negligence contributes to the injury of another.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ariz. App. 185 - Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court