Therrien v. Safeguard Manufacturing Co.
180 Conn. 91, 429 A.2d 808, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 735 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The law does not impose an implied contractual duty upon a buyer of a product to indemnify the manufacturer-seller for liability arising from injuries sustained by the buyer's employee in the use of that product.
Facts:
- Safeguard Manufacturing Company sold a Model J Pullout Guard, a safety device for a machine press, to Torin Corporation.
- At the time of the sale, Safeguard provided instructions to Torin's agents and employees regarding the necessary adjustments, inspections, and maintenance for the pullout guard.
- Paul Therrien, an employee of Torin Corporation, was subsequently injured while using a machine press equipped with the Safeguard pullout guard.
- There was no express contract of indemnification between Safeguard and Torin.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Therrien (plaintiff) sued Safeguard Manufacturing Company (defendant) in the trial court, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.
- Safeguard filed a third-party complaint against Torin Corporation (third-party defendant), Therrien's employer, seeking indemnification.
- The trial court granted Torin's motion to strike Safeguard's third-party complaint.
- After Safeguard elected not to plead over, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Torin.
- Safeguard (third-party plaintiff/appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a buyer of a product have an implied contractual duty to indemnify the manufacturer-seller for liability arising from injuries sustained by the buyer's employee, merely because the seller provided instructions on the product's proper use, adjustment, and maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. A buyer of a product does not have an implied contractual duty to indemnify the manufacturer-seller for injuries sustained by the buyer's employee. Safeguard's claim for indemnification fails because its complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of either a contract implied in fact or a contract implied in law. A contract implied in fact requires an actual agreement demonstrated by words or conduct, and merely receiving safety instructions is not tantamount to a promise to indemnify. A contract implied in law, or quasi-contract, requires a duty created by law, and the law does not independently impose a duty on a buyer to indemnify a manufacturer in these circumstances. Furthermore, since Connecticut law does not permit contribution among joint tortfeasors unless one is actively negligent, and Safeguard did not allege this, there is no basis for Torin's liability.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a commercial buyer's duty of care in using a product does not automatically translate into a contractual duty to indemnify the manufacturer. It reinforces the distinct legal requirements for contracts implied in fact (requiring actual agreement) and contracts implied in law (requiring a legally imposed duty). The ruling protects buyers from having indemnification obligations imposed upon them without an express agreement, thereby preventing manufacturers from easily shifting liability for defective products onto their customers.
