Nebraska Supreme Court

Harsh International, Inc., Appellant v. Monfort Industries, Inc., Appellee

June 6, 2003266 Neb. 82

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal with prejudice of Harsh International's claims against Monfort arising from Harsh's settlement of an employee-injury action. It held that the workers' compensation exclusivity provision bars third-party contribution claims based on an employer's alleged intentional acts and does not permit implied indemnity absent an express agreement or special relationship. The court also held that Harsh's comparative-negligence theory was barred by res judicata and that amendment was properly denied because the pleading defect could not be cured.

Holding

  • Contribution based on intentional acts. The workers' compensation exclusivity provision bars a third-party tortfeasor from seeking contribution from an employer for the employer's alleged intentional acts.
  • Implied indemnity. An implied indemnity claim cannot overcome the workers' compensation exclusivity provision unless an express indemnity contract or a special relationship capable of implying an indemnity obligation exists. A vendor-vendee relationship, even where the vendee requested modifications to the product, is insufficient.
  • Comparative negligence and res judicata. Harsh's comparative-negligence theory was barred by res judicata because it could have been litigated in the prior action involving the employee's injuries.
  • Leave to amend. The district court properly denied leave to amend because no reasonable possibility existed that an amendment could cure the pleading defect.

Docket S-02-381

Cited authorities

  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-118
  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF