227 Cal. App. 2d 69 - Herrero v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 163 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 20 Cal. 3d 578 - American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978), 21 Cal. 3d 322 - Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978)
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 163 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co. · 55 Cal. 2d 857 - Stewart v. Cox · 208 Cal. App. 2d 367 - Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co. · Ash v. Mortensen · 37 Cal. 2d 159 - Popejoy v. Hannon
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"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”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“right to [employ] indemnity ... has been allowed in many cases and in varying fact situations where considerations of equity required the right to be recognized”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No one explanation appears to cover all cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.