Legal Opinion

Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Metal Building Alteration Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 24, 1987No. A033560PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEWSOM, J.

The question presented by this appeal is whether appellant Morton Thiokol is entitled to contractual indemnity from respon dent Metal Building Alteration Company, despite the jury’s finding that appellant was actively negligent.

The relevant facts may be summarized as follows.

In 1982, Metal Building Alteration Company (hereafter Metal Building or respondent) contracted with appellant to install a new roof at appellant’s salt refinery. In the contract, Metal Building agreed that it had “visited the site and fully” understood “the working conditions and material handling…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
  2. E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. Gonzales v. R. J. Novick Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Widson v. International Harvester Co.California Court of Appeal · 1984

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bailey & Sons, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Hillman v. Leland E. Burns, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 v. Baglino Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Rooz v. KimmelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API