Daly v. Bergstedt
1964 Minn. LEXIS 633, 126 N.W.2d 242, 267 Minn. 244 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party whose liability is vicarious or passive, arising from a non-delegable duty to maintain safe premises, is entitled to indemnity from an independent contractor whose active negligence was the primary and direct cause of the injury.
Facts:
- James and Robert Duffy, owners of Duffy Brothers grocery store, hired Bergstedt-Nielsen Store Equipment Company to install new equipment.
- The store remained open to customers during the remodeling project.
- Richard Hotch, an employee of Bergstedt-Nielsen, placed a 6-inch-high pile of dark masonite molding in a customer aisle.
- Marie Daly, a customer, was shopping in the store.
- As Daly walked down the aisle carrying two bags of groceries, her foot struck the molding, causing her to fall.
- The fall resulted in a fractured leg and a severe bruise on her left breast.
- Approximately 14 months after the fall, Daly was diagnosed with cancer at the site of the breast bruise.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie P. Daly sued Duffy Brothers (store owners), Bergstedt-Nielsen Store Equipment Company (contractors), and Richard Hotch (employee) in a Minnesota trial court for personal injuries.
- The jury returned a verdict for Daly against all defendants.
- The trial court then considered cross-claims for indemnity between the co-defendants.
- The trial court ordered Bergstedt-Nielsen and Hotch to indemnify Duffy Brothers for any amount they were obligated to pay Daly.
- Bergstedt, Nielsen, and Hotch (appellants) appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court from the trial court's order denying their motion for a new trial and granting indemnity to Duffy Brothers (appellees).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a store owner, held liable for a customer's injury due to a breach of its non-delegable duty to keep the premises safe, entitled to indemnity from the independent contractor whose employee's active negligence was the sole proximate cause of the hazardous condition that led to the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Murphy
Yes. A store owner held liable for breaching a non-delegable duty is entitled to indemnity from a contractor whose active negligence was the primary cause of the injury. The court reasoned that while Duffy Brothers had a non-delegable duty to keep the store safe for customers, their fault was passive, arising from their ownership of the premises. The active, primary negligence was committed by Hotch, the contractor's employee, who affirmatively created the hazard by placing the molding in the aisle. Because the parties were not in pari delicto (equally at fault), the passively negligent party (Duffy Brothers) can obtain indemnity from the actively negligent party (Bergstedt-Nielsen/Hotch), whose act was the primary cause of the injury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important distinction between active and passive negligence as a basis for granting indemnity between joint tortfeasors. It clarifies that a property owner's non-delegable duty to maintain safe premises does not automatically make them an active tortfeasor, particularly when the hazardous condition is created solely by an independent contractor. This precedent allows property owners to shift the ultimate financial responsibility to the party that directly created the danger, promoting equitable outcomes and incentivizing contractors to exercise due care.
