Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Williams v. Litton Systems, Inc.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1989No. 81951, (Calendar No. 8)Published

1ConcurrenceRiley, C.J.

I write separately because, while I am in accord with the result reached by the majority, I do not believe that it adequately addresses the certified conflict that it is meant to resolve.1_

*762My concern is that it is difficult to extract a workable rule from the opinion. I gather that the rule is that if the primary complaint alleges active negligence, then the third-party plaintiff is precluded from indemnity because it (third-party plaintiff) is not free from active negligence. I disagree with this rule — if, in fact, this is what the opinion means to say.

The workers’ compensation statute…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hill v. Sullivan Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Reed v. ST CLAIR RUBBER CO.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Cutter v. Massey-Ferguson, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Williams v. Litton Systems, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Home Insurance v. Jones & LamsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985

1 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