Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1979

Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co. v. Rittenberry

Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co. v. Rittenberry
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided February 9, 1979 · Booth, Ervin, Mills
379 So. 2d 961; 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14166 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co. v. Rittenberry

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment notwithstanding verdict entered in favor of Monsanto, the employer of Rittenberry, following the entry of a verdict in favor of the third party tortfeasor, Chattanooga, on its claim for indemnity against Monsanto. Chattanooga had alleged Monsanto was actively negligent in causing certain injuries suffered by its employee, Rittenberry, during the course of employment, while Chattanooga was only passively negligent. There can be no claim for indemnity, under the circumstances, by a third party tortfeasor against an injured party’s employer. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978).

The judgment notwithstanding verdict is AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur. BOOTH, J., specially concurring.

Concurring Opinion

BOOTH, Judge,

specially concurring.

The facts here do not bring cause within the rule of Home Indemnity v. Edwards, 360 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and cases cited therein, therefore, I concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.