Put another way, common liability arises when both parties are liable to the injured party for part or all of the same damages. Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001) (citing Milbank Mut. Ins. Co. v. Village of Rose Creek, 225 N.W.2d 6, 8-9 (Minn. 1974)). Liability thus arises from the fact of the tortious event, and "an injured party's failure to bring an action against a tortfeasor . . .[will not] relieve a tortfeasor of his liability to a joint tortfeasor for contribution."
“Contribution is an equitable doctrine that requires that persons under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Far E. Aluminium Works Co. v. Viracon, Inc., 520 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1115 (D. Minn. 2021) (quoting Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001)). “Contribution requires proof of ‘(1) common liability of two or more actors to the injured party; and (2) the payment by one of the actors of more than its fair share of that common liability.'”
"Contribution is an equitable doctrine that requires that persons under a common burden share that burden equitably." Id. at 1115 (quoting Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)).
For authority, Amazon relies on Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co.632 N.W.2d 248 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001). There, Nuessmeier Electric owned a commercial building, and leased space in the building to LeSueur Electric Motor Repair.
Given the foregoing, the right to recover contribution does not automatically follow the right to simply seek contribution. See Perrella v. Shorewood RV Center, No. Civ.03-424, 2004 WL 741567, at *3 (D. Minn. March 31, 2004) (citing Neussmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Mfg Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 253 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)). "Where a defendant seeks contribution from a third-party defendant for settlement payments, it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the settlement was reasonable."
“Whether the right of contribution exists is a legal issue, which we review de novo.” Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 2001).
; Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001) (“The essential elements of a contribution claim [include] common liability of two or more actors to the injured party.”).
"Contribution is an equitable doctrine that requires that persons under a common burden share that burden equitably." Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Contribution requires proof of "(1) common liability of two or more actors to the injured party; and (2) the payment by one of the actors of more than its fair share of that common liability."
(Supp. Mem. at 11 (quoting Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co. , 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) ).) Arrowood's argument fails because it asks the Court to determine the merits of the claim at the motion to dismiss stage.
"'The essential elements of a contribution claim are (1) common liability of two or more actors to the injured party; and (2) the payment by one of the actors of more than its fair share of that common liability.'" A.P.I., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 706 F. Supp. 2d 926, 946 (D. Minn. 2010) (quoting Nuessmeier Elec., Inc. v. Weiss Mfg. Co., 632 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)). The Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that "what constitutes 'common liability' is not susceptible of a single precise definition," and because the concept is "an element of the equitable remedy of contribution" it has been "accorded some elasticity."