Mierzejwski v. Stronczek

18 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. FMC Corp.

    537 F. Supp. 466 (C.D. Ill. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    Indemnity derives from principles of contract, and may be express or implied. Implied indemnity traditionally requires a pre-tort relationship which gives rise to a duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Mierzejwski v. Stronczek, 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (1968) (lessor-lessee); Embree v. DeKalb Forge Co., 49 Ill. App.2d 85, 199 N.E.2d 250 (1964) (employer-employee); Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co., 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808 (1962) (owner-lessee); Gulf, Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783 (1951) (master-servant). However, in response to the harshness of the no-contribution rule, the Illinois courts expanded the traditional doctrine of implied indemnity to "passive-active" negligence cases.

  2. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Colonial Stores

    332 F. Supp. 531 (S.D. Ohio 1971)   Cited 8 times

    Illinois decisional law expresses a strong policy in favor of the application of this rule to prevent a multiplicity of suits and to permit a determination of the rights and liabilities of all parties before a single tribunal and upon the same evidence. See People ex rel. Boyington v. Northfield Township High School District No. 225, 402 Ill. 435, 84 N.E.2d 553 (1949); Bogan v. Postlewait, 265 N.E.2d 195 (Ill.App. 1970); Muhlbauer v. Kruzel, 39 Ill.2d 226, 234 N.E.2d 790 (1968); Mierzejwski v. Stronczek, 100 Ill.App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (1968). This would be the preferable course.

  3. Van Slambrouck v. Economy Baler Co.

    105 Ill. 2d 462 (Ill. 1985)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that a purchaser-seller relationship was insufficient to support a cause of action for "downstream" indemnity

    Van Jacobs v. Parikh (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 610, 612. Classic pretort relationships which have given rise to a duty to indemnify include: lessor and lessee ( Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68); employer and employee ( Embree v. DeKalb Forge Co. (1964), 49 Ill. App.2d 85); owner and his lessee ( Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co. (1962), 37 Ill. App.2d 12); master and servant ( Gulf Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. (1951), 343 Ill. App. 148). In Reynolds v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1964), 51 Ill. App.2d 334, and Sargent v. Interstate Bakeries, Inc. (1967), 86 Ill. App.2d 187, indemnity was permitted even though there was no pretort relationship alleged and/or proved between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant.

  4. Kerschner v. Weiss Co.

    282 Ill. App. 3d 497 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that "no competent lawyer, exercising a reasonable degree of care and skill" would have advised the plaintiff to withdraw from partnership, stated a claim for legal malpractice

    Frazer v. A.F. Munsterman, Inc., 123 Ill.2d 245, 255, 527 N.E.2d 1248 (1988); Van Slambrouck v. Economy Baler Co., 105 Ill.2d 462, 475 N.E.2d 867 (1985). Classic pretort relationships which have given rise to a duty to indemnify include lessor and lessee ( Mierzejwski v. Stronczek, 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (1968)), employer and employee ( Embree v. DeKalb Forge Co., 49 Ill. App.2d 85, 199 N.E.2d 250 (1964)), owner and his lessee ( Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co., 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808 (1962)), and master and servant ( Gulf Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783 (1951)). In the instant case, Kerschner and Karlin have clearly alleged a pretort relationship with Goodman. The third-party complaint alleged that KKS retained Goodman in the summer of 1989 to provide professional advice regarding their withdrawal from Weiss Company and regarding the formation of a new accounting partnership.

  5. Duncan v. Church of the Living God

    662 N.E.2d 1371 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 4 times

    We reject Staalsen's argument that section 2-406(b) limits the Duncans' right to appeal. The purpose of section 2-406(b) is to avoid multiplicity of lawsuits and the reduplication of evidence. People v. Fiorini, 143 Ill.2d 318, 574 N.E.2d 612 (1991); Mierzejwski v. Stronczek, 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (1968). Any party to a case may seek appellate review from a final judgment which is adverse to his or her interests.

  6. Coleman v. Franklin Boulevard Hospital

    592 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    To state a cause of action for implied indemnity, a third-party complaint must allege: (1) a pretort relationship between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant, and (2) a qualitative distinction between the conduct of the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. ( Van Slambrouck v. Economy Baler Co. (1985), 105 Ill.2d 462, 475 N.E.2d 867; Brown v. Torin Corp. (1988), 175 Ill. App.3d 544, 529 N.E.2d 1077.) Classic pretort relationships which have given rise to a duty to indemnity include: lessor and lessee ( Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573); employer and employee ( Embree v. De Kalb Forge Co. (1964), 49 Ill. App.2d 85, 199 N.E.2d 250); owner and his lessee ( Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co. (1962), 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808); and master and servant. Gulf Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. (1951), 343 Ill. App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783.

  7. Thatcher v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

    147 Ill. App. 3d 534 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    Implied indemnity classically requires some pretort relationship between the parties which gives rise to a duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (lessor and lessee); Embree v. DeKalb Forge Co. (1964), 49 Ill. App.2d 85, 199 N.E.2d 250 (employer and employee); Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co. (1962), 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808 (owner and his lessee); Gulf, Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. (1951), 343 Ill. App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783 (master and servant).)

  8. Wheeler v. Ellison

    464 N.E.2d 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 4 times
    In Wheeler, an Illinois Appellate Court determined that the lessor of a tractor trailer could not maintain a third-party action against the lessee for indemnity and contribution since its driver's negligence caused the accident.

    In any event, this requirement is satisfied in this case because Illinois courts have recognized that a lease between the parties, as is alleged here, is sufficient to constitute a pretort relationship. See, e.g., Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573; Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co. (1962), 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808. • 4 To satisfy the qualitative difference requirement, a party must demonstrate that his fault for the injuries of the original plaintiff is different in quality or nature, rather than in quantity, from that of the proposed indemnitor. ( Harris v. Algonquin Ready Mix, Inc. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 445.)

  9. Sullivan v. Power Construction, Inc.

    439 N.E.2d 500 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 2 times

    As developed by Illinois courts, the judicially created theory of ordering indemnity evolved to circumvent the harsh effect of the no-contribution rule. Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 75, 241 N.E.2d 573; see also Kissel, Theories of Indemnity as Related to Third Party Practice, 54 Chi. Bar Rec. 157 (1973). Third-party indemnity was traditionally allowed to a tortfeasor whose misconduct was passive in comparison to the misconduct of another tortfeasor whose wrongdoing could be characterized both as active and as the primary cause of plaintiff's injuries.

  10. Van Jacobs v. Parikh

    97 Ill. App. 3d 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 36 times
    In Van Jacobs v. Parikh, 97 Ill.App.3d 610, 52 Ill.Dec. 770, 422 N.E.2d 979, (1981), a panel of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, held that the birth of the contribution did not extinguish indemnity in Illinois, but instead placed indemnity back on its traditional foundation.

    Implied indemnity classically requires some pre-tort relationship between the parties which gives rise to a duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Mierzejwski v. Stronczek (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 68, 241 N.E.2d 573 (lessor and lessee); Embree v. DeKalb Forge Co. (1964), 49 Ill. App.2d 85, 199 N.E.2d 250 (employer and employee); Blaszak v. Union Tank Car Co. (1962), 37 Ill. App.2d 12, 184 N.E.2d 808 (owner and his lessee); Gulf, Mobile Ohio R.R. Co. v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. (1951), 343 Ill. App. 148, 98 N.E.2d 783 (master and servant).)