 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holloway v. Crescent Truck Lines9/24/1996
California Court of Appeals
No. A070503
49 Cal.App.4th 751, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 850, 1996.ca.3
September 24, 1996
EARL L. HOLLOWAY, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT,
v.
CRESCENT TRUCK LINES ET AL., CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of Napa County. Super. Ct. No. 63434. Hon. W. Scott Snowden, Judge.
Review Denied December 23, 1996 and the Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish this opn. in the Official Reports (Cal. Const., art. VI, ยง 14; rule 976, Cal. Rules of Ct.).
Judith Craddick, Charles Bond and Charles M. Marx, for Appellant.
Donald R. Wild and Terence Kenney, for Respondents.
Hitchens, J. Haerle, A.p.j., and Lambden, J., Concurring.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hitchens
HITCHENS, J.:*
Earl L. Holloway, M.D. (hereafter Holloway) timely appeals from a post-trial order of the Napa County Superior Court denying his application for attorney fees and expert witness fees on the grounds that Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6 was not applicable to the case and the tender of defense requirement set out in the statute had not been met. This case presents the unique question of whether a defendant who is absolved of all liability in a personal injury action is entitled to statutory attorney fees from his codefendants where there is no right to express or implied contractual indemnity. We conclude section 1021.6 does not apply to situations where the alleged indemnitee's right to indemnification would be based solely on a theory of comparative or partial equitable indemnity. As a result, Holloway's statutory claim for attorney fees and expert witness fees must be denied. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from a tractor-trailer accident involving Crescent Truck Lines, Inc.'s employee, Robert Jessie Nolan, Jr. (hereafter Crescent and Nolan or collectively respondents). On July 26, 1991, Nolan, as a truck driver for Crescent and while in the course and scope of his employment, fell asleep at the wheel, driving Crescent's tractor-trailer into a line of stopped cars. One person was killed, and numerous others were injured.
Eight separate lawsuits alleging wrongful death and various other personal injury claims were ultimately filed against respondents and later consolidated with the present action. On July 14, 1993, plaintiffs amended their complaints to add Nolan's cardiologist, Holloway, as a defendant. Thereafter, on November 4, 1993, Crescent filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Holloway, claiming Holloway's medical negligence prevented the proper diagnosis of Nolan's cardiac arrhythmia, and was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Holloway denied all allegations, and on January 11, 1994, filed a cross-complaint for comparative indemnity against Nolan and Crescent. Holloway alleged he would be entitled to comparative indemnity from respondents for any damages for which he might be found liable, and "for his costs and expenses in settling some or all of the alleged actions, in proportion to the percentage of fault or responsibility which cross-defendant's were said to bear for said damages."
The matter proceeded to a jury trial where, on December 22, 1994, Holloway was found not liable for the accident, and Crescent was found 85 percent liable. No indemnity issue was presented to the jur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|