welcome to this presentation in which
we’re going to be covering the chapter about voicing let me go over here the
chapter about liability division so let me go ahead and go into that chapter
it’s chapter 15 in our textbook I’ll let me go down here for that chapter and the
chapters entitled joint liability but when I hear the word joint at least I
think of two parties being involved but you can actually have many more than two
defendants who are sharing or who are participating in some way in the
liability of each other so let’s get started we’re going to talk in this
lecture about all five of these categories joint in several liability
the first topic satisfaction contribution release and indemnification
and we’ll see at the end indemnification kind of loops back around a contribution
in certain ways so let’s talk about this first item briefly and then we’ll talk
more extensively about and we get to that that particular slide with join
several liability each tort feasor is liable for the entire loss if the
loss is indivisible let’s pause for a second little reminder ballot tort
feasor means tortfeasors someone who has been found liable for a particular tort
so this is a defendant in a case in which the plaintiff has been successful
and we find out that each tort feasor under joint several liability theory is
it liable for the entire loss not just his or her pro rata portion of the loss
but the entire loss in cases in which the loss is indivisible which is usually
what’s happening so let’s go over some vocabulary first of all we have the idea
of joint tortfeasors in most cases we’ll see that the tortfeasor tortfeasors
our joint these are two or more persons and of course when we use the word
person in the law we’re not talking exclusively about human beings but these
could be corporations governmental entities partnerships associations
or they could be flesh-and-blood human beings too or some combination of those
things so we have two or more entities who act in concert to produce a
negligent or intentional tort and when we say in concert here we don’t
necessarily mean that they have some detailed plan where they’re gonna kind
of co-conspirators what it means is that their actions together produce the tort
it may not have been by any kind of grand design they may not even been
aware of each other the example that I have here is to drag racers but only one
caused an injury but they were both drag racing and so they were acting together
in that situation it could be a car accident where one driver swerves into a
lane the other driver slams on his brakes I’m a third one is not paying
attention as driving too fast and hits the cars or something along those lines
these people didn’t know each other beforehand they had no plan to be in an
accident together but each one of their actions contributed to that overall
event where the car accident happened another term to consider in addition to
joint tortfeasors concurrent tortfeasors actually I apologize before when I was
saying a joint tortfeasors are really meant to concurrent tort feasor so let
me back up and make it a little bit clearer I apologize a joint tortfeasors
when they are doing the same activity the activity at least is planned
together although they certainly don’t intend the tort concurrent tortfeasors
is like what I just described where each person is acting independently but their
actions together in combination cause that tort to happen and cause the injury
so the concurrent tortfeasors is is the one car racing the other car swerving
the third car slamming on brakes unexpectedly or
something along those lines so in either case though I’ve made a big fuss about
defining these two terms but in both cases whether it’s a joint tortfeasor
situation or concurrent tortfeasor situation there’s no difference in the
legal outcome in both cases the tortfeasors are going to be jointly and
severally liable I’m a little type of there I apologize that that peered out
to be after the E and this happens when the apportionment is is indivisible if
you can segregate the loss and say well that portion is attributed to that
tortfeasors action and that portion is attributable to that tortfeasors action
you could you could separate them but most of the time that’s not the case
most of the time each party kind of contributed to the overall accident and
you can’t separate them you know so the usual answer is going to be that it’s
indivisible and therefore the parties are jointly the defense are jointly and
severally liable that is by far the most common result let’s talk about the rules
in Texas I’m in chapter 16 we’ll talk about tort reform but we’ve already kind
of touched on these topics before I said that all the defendants are jointly and
severally liable but that’s not true in Texas after tort reform the only
defendant who is going to be jointly and severally liable is a defendant who has
over 50 percent responsibility for the accident so let’s think about a couple
of scenarios imagine we have Bob first in there he’s 40 percent responsible and
then we have the plaintiff we’ll call her Louise she’s 10 percent responsible
and then we have Ann and Ann is well we’ll make her
thirty percent responsible and then we’ll make David twenty percent
responsible hopefully that adds up yeah it looks like it adds up to one hundred
so all of the tortfeasors are under 50 percent responsible so if it ends up
that Ann is insolvent she knows she’s judgment doesn’t have
any money she’s not going to be to pay it Bob only has to pay his forty percent
but the jury found he was responsible for and David only has to pay only his
twenty percent neither Bob nor David are responsible for Ann’s 30 percent the
plaintiff becomes responsible for that amount Louise does but let’s switch up
the percentages instead of Bob being forty percent responsible now Bob is
fifty-one percent responsible Lewis is still ten percent responsible and is now twenty percent responsible and David is
19 percent responsible okay so Anna’s still judgment proof she has
no money so the plaintiff can collect all except for her own responsibility
her ten percent responsibility so she goes to David and says hey David pay me
my 19 percent David pays up and she goes to Anna and says Ann pay me my 20
percent and says I don’t have the money and then is it lying she doesn’t have
the money so then Louise goes to Bob and says hey
Bob pay your 51 percent oh and by the way also pay Ann’s 20% so pea telus Evan
T one percent because Bob’s liability determined by the jury’s over fifty
percent then she is jointly and severally liable from Ann’s amount he’d
also would have been jointly and severally liable for David’s amount if
David had been judgment proof so that’s how that jointly and severally liable
works in Texas let’s talk about a settling situation let’s imagine that
David had settled his claim against Louise maybe
trial maybe after trial well then when the jury was considering liability David
would not be a defendant in front of the jury
but the jury would still be instructed to assess to assign a percentage of
responsibility to David it might match whatever David and Lewis had negotiated
it might not it might be greater it might be less whatever so so the the
actual agreement between Louise and David would not control in terms of
assigning the percentage it would be with the jury finds now in that
situation let’s say that that the jury found that David was sixty percent
responsible and is ten percent responsible Bob is twenty percent
responsible and Louise herself the plaintiff is ten percent responsible so
Louise settles with David before trial and Louise get some settlement out of it
then the the jury again returns these percentages and it ends up that Ann is
still a judgment-proof Louise is able to collect the twenty percent from Bob but
when she goes to Anna and requests her ten percent and says I don’t have any
money and she’s not able to Emily’s is not able to get it for man well Louise
might be tempted to go today but and say hey David
the jury found you the you were more than fifty percent responsible so you
need to pay Ann’s portion but guess what David isn’t required to do so because he
has a Salomon agreement and that excludes and him from that task
now then Lewis might go to Bob and say well Bob you’re almost say Bob’s
percentage was 21% and Ann’s percentage was 9% Louise might say well Bob of the
non settlers you’re more over fifty percent responsible
I’m just ten percent and just nine percent your twenty one percent which is
more than so you need to pay and portion her 9%
since she’s judgment-proof but that’s not how it works because Bob
will say well yeah I’m 21% overall and that’s what’s important it’s
not my amount compared to the non settlers you chose to settle with day
that your actions in the settlement can’t suddenly cause me to have more
legal responsibility than otherwise would have had and so that’s not going
to work so the seller can’t be forced to pay for judgment-proof
defendants and the non settlers get a break on their percentage of
responsibility with the inclusion of the settlers in in the calculation that the
jury is going to make here’s the actual statute I’m going to have several slides
here that covered the actual statute in Texas amount of liability except is
provided in Subsection B which we’ll see in a second
a liable defendant let me stop here we say liable defendant this is one of the
jury has found liable that’s what that means is liable to a claimant who’s the
claimant well that would be the plaintiff only for the percentage of the
damages found by the Trier of fact who is this usually gonna be the jury could
be the judge in a bench trial though so a liable defendant is liable to a
claimant only for the percentage of damages found with the Trier of fact
equal to the defendants percentage or responsibility with respect to the
personal injury property damage death or other harm for which the damages are
allowed so this is saying generally speaking the rule isn’t going to be
joined in some reliability anymore in Texas but there’s a huge but here let’s
go the next slide notwithstanding what we just read each thigh will defended is
in addition to his liability under subsection a jointly and severally
liable for the damages recoverable by the claimant under this statute with
respect to a cause of action if and here we have that greater than 50 percent
Clause the percentage of responsibility attributed to the defendant with respect
to a cause of action is greater than 50 percent that’s one way the joint and
several liability works the second you can see there’s an aura here it’s not
so the plaintiff is just gonna have to establish one of these you know this is
the case and therefore that that party is jointly serve a level or this is the
case I mean it might be the case that both are the case but the plaintiff only
needs one so let’s see what the second category is the defendant with a
specific intent to harm others acted in concert with another person to engage in
the concert conduct described in the following provisions of the Penal Code
and in so doing proximately caused the damage is legally recoverable by the
claimant and you can see basically they’re very bad serious crimes so
that’s the other way of having responsibly so even if the defendant is
less than 50% or less responsible if he committed one of these crimes and had
the intent to harm the the plaintiff or plaintiffs then that person will be
jointly and severally liable okay let’s look at another statute that as you can
see is shortly after this in the code and this is the one that says that we’re
going to include settling parties and not just settling parties but each
responsible third party so it’s not just going to be the claimant and the in the
remaining defendants who the jury is going to decide to apportion
a percentage of responsibility not at all it’s also going to include on those
selling parties which makes sense because you know needs to add up to 100%
but if you don’t have 100 and the people that are responsible then that number is
not going to have a lot of meaning then we’ve already covered this one but over
covered this concept but let me just briefly touch on this a person against
whom a judgment is rendered has on payment the judgment a right to of
action to recover payment from each co-defendant against whom judgment is
also rendered okay so this would apply in a situation remember when the
in our scenario where we had Bob being 51% liable and he pays not only his
percentage but also Ann’s because she’s judgment proof well she is going to be
required to do that with respect to the lease he’ll have to pay Louise said
amount of money but he can Bob can then turn around and Sue and and say hey Ann
you owe me that that nine percent that you were supposed to pay and obviously
and it at at least at that same time doesn’t have the money she’s judgment
proof but maybe she’s gonna win the lottery maybe she’s going to come into a
fortune maybe they’re gonna find oil on our land all kinds of things can happen
that change her financial situation and once Bob becomes aware of that and he’s
going to be able to proceed and in fact he can proceed but he doesn’t have to
wait you can proceed immediately and then I’m have a judgment that he can
execute at some later time so it doesn’t mean that just because bob has to pay it
to the lease it doesn’t mean that Bob can never get satisfaction for man now
I’ll be honest with you the odds of an coming into a fortune is probably not
that great but there is a mechanism that you know can sometimes kick in let’s see let’s go on to Hall versus Dupont this
really isn’t the way the law works in Texas I included this little a case
brief so that you would have access to the information but one thing to notice
about that this case brief it’s more important to know about it from the
perspective of I mean you can see you don’t need another name in this case but
this is how a case brief works you have the issue you had the facts and then you
have the analysis the holding of the case and this this shows how in this
particular case the defendants were working in some kind of collusion and
therefore they were jointly and severally liable but again this isn’t
the way the law works in Texas anymore so I’m offering this to you is just kind
of an FYI an example of how another jurisdiction looks at this particular
issue but it’s not the law in Texas okay so you may recall we started this we
talked about joins their reliability so we kind of check this one off and now
we’re going to go to our second one which is satisfaction by the way joint
and several liability is a huge historical concept in the law very very
important historically and it still continues to be important to this day
satisfaction means payment so when we say the plaintiff is entitled to only
one satisfaction we mean he’s entitled to to get 100 percent of his damages but
not a hundred and one percent and so he can just collect one so let’s say that
again going back to the initial example for my second example bob is 51%
responsible and is 20 percent responsible david is 19 percent
responsible and Louise is 10 percent responsible and it’s still judgment
proof so her 20 percent Louise can’t collect but because Bob is over 50
percent responsible Louise can go to Bob and say
pay me or 51% and ands 20% that can happen but let’s say that Ann really
isn’t judgment proof well Louie’s can’t collect the twenty percent from Ann and
then I’ll recollect that twenty percent from Bob that would result in Louie’s
giving recovery of a hundred and twenty percent obviously her ten percent she’s
paying herself but they can just be that one collection from that perspective so
that’s how satisfaction works it’s all 100% deal and of course many times the
plaintiff doesn’t even get one hundred percent satisfaction if you go back to
the my first example that I gave her Bob was only forty percent responsible and
and was judgment proof well unfortunately Louise is going to be out
of luck she’s not going to be to get complete satisfaction because they are
the tortfeasors are not jointly and severally liable so we are done with the
second topic which is satisfaction and now we’re going to go on to contribution
which is one defendant who pays more than his pro rata share of damages is
entitled a contribution from the other defendants I already touched on this
briefly when I was giving the example let me go back to the slides here and
being judgment proof that Bob paying her portion
okay so contribution is one defendant has paid more than his allocator
responsibility he or she can collect from the other defendants okay and as we
already talked about in the I’ll show you the statute in a second
a defendant has no right of contribution against any settling person so going
back to the example where David was actually sixty percent responsible but
he settles with Louise well that might have been a smart plan for him because
now he can’t be held to you know to be jointly and severally liable and he also
can’t be responsible for contribution from any
so for example if if if an is judgment-proof Bob might seek
contribution from David if David hadn’t settled and get get David to pay a
portion of Ann’s judgment that and wasn’t able to pay but since David has
settled bob is the only person who has a buddy excuse me who can be responsible
for that payment and here is the statute if a defendant who is jointly and
severally liable pays the person the damages which the defendant is jointly
and severally liable greater than his percentage of responsibility that
defendant is a right of contribution for the overpayment against each other
liable defendant to the extent the other defendant has not paid the percentage of
damages found by the traffic equal to the other defendants percentage of
responsibility so if all David aspec David hasn’t settled in the scenario and
all and he has paid as his own percentage but he hasn’t contributed
toward Ann’s percentage and in fact Bob paid all of Ann’s percentage well yes
David does Oh Bob his pro rata version portion of Ann’s liability and of course
Ian still owes it to and here a couple of blanks on the contribution side if
for any reason a liable defendant does not pay or contribute the portion the
damages required by his percentage responsibility the amount of damages not
paid or contributed by that defendant shall be paid or contributed by the
remaining defendants who are jointly and severally liable for those damages the
additional amount to be paid or contributed by each of the defendants
who are jointly and certainly liable for the damages shall be in proportion to
his or her relative percentage of responsibility that’s basically what I
just said and again repeating no defendant is
right of contribution against any settling person so if David settles he’s
off the hook for contribution so we’ve covered joint liability satis
action contribution or now up to release when the plaintiff release is a
defendant from any claims to release as part of a settlement agreement and of
course the plaintiff do mean the defendant can’t be sued for that any
longer okay so we’re going to talk about the problem of releases and there’s
three ways to solve this problem approach a is that the non release
defendant the one who who wants to get contribution from the selling party can
seek contribution from the release defendant so again going back to the
example and we’ve already talked about this but just to reiterate and his
judgment-proof bob’s had to pay ends portion bob would
dearly love to go to david and say hey david you know you need to kick in some
money for her anne’s portion the problem with this approach is that the
discourages david from settling because he might be seen yourself well I’m not
off the hook I’m still maybe going to be liable for this because you know even if
I settle with Louise because Bob may come and get me because he may be he’ll
be found to be more than 50 percent liable and maybe and it’s gonna be
judgment proof and so I could still be on the hook and that makes me not want
to settle or we have approach B which as you can see as the Texas roll we’ve
already talked about that the non release defendant cannot seek
contribution that this is Bob but plaintiffs claim against non release
defendant is reduced okay and after all that is that is the case remember that
whatever percentage the jury has allocated to David the defendant who has
assigned a release is is not in play in terms of assigning it to Bob or Ann so
if the jury found David 20% liable most that it can find Bob responsible
for is 80% and the most that it can find Bob and Louisa man together responsible
for is 80% so David’s culpability is still a factor
it still effects positively it reduces how much Bob will be required to pay now
the argument for this one is that it could discourage Lewis from settling but
that’s not really true the way we do in Texas because the the percentage isn’t
what the parties agreed to it doesn’t want Louise and David agreed to but it’s
what the jury finds and the jury might find very different numbers than what
David and Louise anticipated the jury would find her what was what has written
up in the release the third option is not the law in Texas and then the non
release party cannot see contribution and plaintiffs a claim is unaffected by
release as long as the parties negotiate in good faith and so in this situation
Bob can’t seek contribution from David and David’s liability isn’t even a
factor in the jury consideration but again approach be kind of Mel the road
approach is the one that we have in Texas and here it is we’ve already I’ve
already shown the science what I’ve already talked about we have each
settling person that would be David each responsible third party which may be
someone who didn’t settle that is not subject to lawsuits okay let’s talk
about Mary Carter and Gallagher agreements they’re the same thing
they’re just different names the names come from kind of famous cases that had
those names in the case so let’s go over the facts here this is useful to know
about although I have to tell you the Mary Carter agreement violates public
policy in Texas and are therefore void that’s not true everywhere in the United
States you will see places that do permit Mary Carter agreement so it’s not
a completely closed door but it’s so therefore it’s it’s good to know
and there’s a common term you know people use so it’s good for you to be
aware of the term means in the Mary Carter case this is what happened to
defendants guaranteed the plaintiff a certain amount of money if the plaintiff
lost or recovered less than a stated son the plaintiff did not enter into
agreement with the third party they’re dead defendant okay so two settled one
remained the the the settlement that the defendants entered in with the plaintiff
wasn’t your typical settlement where the defendants paid the plaintiffs and some
of money and they were released from the lawsuit but what happened here was that they agreed to pay the paint company or
I guess maybe it was booth I can’t remember who the who’s who in this case
but the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff a certain amount of money if
that the plaintiff wasn’t able to get a certain amount from the third defendant
so that part wasn’t isn’t that controversy or isn’t that unusual it’s
kind of a high-low deal this is the part that’s controversial though the defib
that the plaintiff refunded part of the defendants payment in the event of a
verdict against the defendant that was in excess of the contractually agreed
amount so if the plaintiff got a lot of money from this third defendant the
plaintiff was going to give a refund to the first two defendants so what this
meant was that the defendants had a motivation to make the third defendant
look really guilty and also make the plaintiffs damages really really sound
big and so the the jury might look upon it and think well that all the
defendants are there together but no really the defendants were on the
plaintiff the first two defense from the plaintiff side and so this this created
kind of a strange appearance that the jury was not necessarily aware of you
know and well they weren’t aware of it because it was a secret agreement Mary
card agreements are always seek and so the jury was linked while these
defendants really think that third third defendants responsible and they think
that the damages are big well why would the defendants say the damages were big
unless they really were big and so it caused the the the jurors to think well
these two defendants say it’s bound to be true when in fact the defendants had
an economic reason to have that particular point of view so again these
are they violate the policy of Texas and they’re not but and therefore they’re
not enforceable here this next case gives an example kind of a hot of a
hi-low analysis and similar to that that Mary Carter agreement we just talked
about so let’s look at at this case and again this is not from Texas so the
decision that the Ohio Court made would not be the same decision that we’d have
in Texas today so we have a patient Michael Hodesh and he goes in for
surgery the doctor unfortunately says powell inside mr. ho – a surgery his
body after the surgery and he has obviously complications from that
eventually mr. Hodesh sues the doctor in the hospital and the hospital settles
with mr. Hodesh and the hospital’s agrees or guarantees mr. Hodesh that
he’s going to get at least one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars no
matter what happens at trial Hodesh is definitely going to get this amount of
money but Hodesh agrees that no matter what the jury says Hodesh won’t try to
collect more than two hundred fifty thousand from the hospital so the
hospital agrees to pay this if necessary if the same the jury does it doesn’t
require the doctor to pay this amount of money but no matter what the jury says
this is the maximum that the hospital can be on the hook for okay well the
doctor probably recognizing that the hospital’s maybe not completely on his
side at this point once to get whatever agreements might
exist between the hospital and the patient the the agreement is turned over
to the judge but the judge doesn’t even look at it he puts it on your seal and
doesn’t disclose it to the jury well the jury finds the doctor negligent it
returns a verdict in favor of Hodesh awarding him this amount of money the
jury found the hospital was not negligent at all so the hospital doesn’t
have to pay how – any amount of money and of course this cap doesn’t ever kick
in that you can see during trial the hospital would have an incentive to persuade the jury that ho dishes
injuries are pretty significant because you won’t they want it to be at least
$175,000 and the hospital also wants it to appear the doctor the doctor was the
one responsible now you might say well of course whenever you have more than
one defendant one hast one definitively pointing his finger at the other
defendant and some of that’s the case but it’s not always the case
in many cases that the defendants are of one mind in the position they take is
you know we’re either all liable or none of us are liable and so the jury might
be thinking well a hospital really thinks the doctors liable and the
hospital think the damages are high that’s bound to be the case even though
the hospital really had a financial advantage or a financial motivation to
make doctor the doctor responsible and to make the damage is high of course the
doctor sued once he found out what the terms of the agreement are and the US I
mean the Ohio Supreme Court found that yeah these are okay that the important
factor is that the trial judge found no signs of collision during trial if the
trial judge found that the hospital seemed to be presenting evidence in a
way so that it would would somehow be able to escape financial responsibility
that would be collusion and therefore the the core
would would have been wrong not to let the jury know about that
this is really a factual issue and very likely the judge is going to give a lot
of assuming that appellate courts can give a lot of leeway to the judge in
making those factual determinations okay so let’s go back to our list here we’ve
talked about join several liability satisfaction and contribution we’ve
talked about releases and our up to our last topic which is indemnification so
what is indemnification it’s the acceptance of total financial
responsibility for another tort feasor it’s an all-or-nothing deal typically
you’re either in debt you indemnify how to present are you not identifying a
penny here are two related terms indemnity is the one who dignifies he’s
the person who’s taking on that financial responsibility and Dimity is
the person who sees the indemnification he’s the person being released from that
responsibility and of course I’m using the term person but again I’m not
necessarily talking about a human being that many many cases it’s a legal entity
of some type such as the corporation okay so how does indemnification differ
from contribution well contribution is this sharing of liability while
indemnification is the complete transfer of liability remember with contribution
we were saying that the Bob was sharing the liability of an and sharing the
liability of David but he wasn’t taking over the responsibility for their their
portions and they remained responsible for their own portions when we have an
indemnitor he’s taking anything I’m going to take care of that completely
now the identity doesn’t have to worry about it so when does how does
indemnification arise probably the most common way is his
first choice out of a contractual obligation it’s very common in contracts
for one party to indemnify another this could be like in a products liability
situation let’s imagine that Toro lawn mowers are sold at Walmart well the
agreement between Toro Walmart might well include an indemnification closet
says well if if some plaintiff Sue’s Walmart because the because of a Toro
lawn mower that it purchased and it has to do with some kind of product
liability issue well Toro is going to have to indemnify
Walmart for that and that makes sense because after all Walmart wasn’t the one
assembling the lawn mower and in fact it would have been very reasonable to
expect Walmart to you know open up the guts of every lawn mower make sure
everything is as it should be so that’s one basis for indemnification
in Si it’s very very common another happens when a factually innocent entity
pays for the real tort feasor based upon vicarious liability a common way this
arises is in an employment situation the employer the entity that employs the
tort feasor didn’t want the tort feasor to commit a tort maybe even train the
tort feasor not to commit the tort but the facts remains of the tort feasor
committed the tort and was acting as an agent of the employer at that time and
so the employer may be responsible for indemnify under those circumstances when
one is liable only because well one fit when he failed to discover prevent
another’s misconduct and therefore missed the misconduct in tort feasor
must indemnify so really in this case the the first tort feasor
is only is his only tort was not stopping the Miscanthus conducting tort
feasor and the miss conducting tort feasor
needs to identify now in that situation if the miss conducting tortfeasors
judgment-proof obviously the vicariously liable one is going to
sorry yeah well the the first one which I guess isn’t precarious liability
exactly but the first one the plaintiff can sue and collect against in the case
of the second tort feasor being judgment-proof when one follows the
directions of another tort feasor and reasonably but incorrectly believes that
his actions are lawful that would be another case when a tortfeasors victim’s
injuries are aggravated by negligent care the doctor may have to indemnify
the first or feasor for additional injury so really this one is the big one
and then the second one that’s of note is this one the other ones are fairly
minor details in the story and you can see that’s where I had the blame so it
kind of tells you okay now as far as I know in texas indentification remains an
all-or-nothing proposition but the textbook says that sometimes courts will
permit equitable indemnification and that’s where the amount of indemnities
is relative is dependent upon the relative fault of the tortfeasors and
again so that’s a kind of a new twist on it see here let’s go onto our next slide we
have this one is not a case you need to know about but it is a good example
about how indemnification works in this story we have a horse who unfortunately
is injured running running a racetrack and has to be euthanized
his owner obviously it’s pretty unhappy about this and sues the racing track
that had the poorly prepared race surface that caused the horse to be
injured and that’s the Gulf Stream and Gulf Stream though filed for
contribution I filed a motion for contribution and contractual
indemnification from the horse’s trainer and apparently there was a stall
agreement and one of the provisions the stall agreements all agreement is a
place where the horses is maintained you know before then after the race and
and it’s basically kind of giving that horse that permission to be at this
place and and giving a Kim although the right to to be a trainer in this
facility anyway one of the provisions in the stall agreement is that Kim rule is
supposed to indemnify Gulfstream well there’s dispute about what the
language of the contract Kimmel’s understating is that camel only
has to indemnify go string when it’s Kimmel’s negligence gold straits
position is now Kim will has to indemnify Gulfstream when it’s Kimmel’s
negligence but also when it’s Gulfstream’s negligence and then
Gulfstream that the the were at the racetrack also maintained that Kimmel
owed the owner of the horse a duty to protect the horse from unreasonably
dangerous conditions and Kimmel you know being a trainer would have been able to
see that that track was not appropriate for the the horse turret to race on at
that particular time and so he should have stopped it and in this particular case that the
court found both contribution and indemnification and and depending upon
how the jury is going to rule certainly Kimmel may need to indemnify goldstream
so again that’s just an example that may help clarify kind of overtime that when
we’re talking about indemnification so if you have any questions please bring
them to class I’ll be glad to answer them thanks for your attention and have
a wonderful day