Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Hair Replacement Centers, Inc. (HRC) appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of Dow Corning Corporation (DCC), which determined that DCC was not required to indemnify HRC for its tort settlement concerning non-economic damages. The appellate court upheld the summary judgment, finding that HRC did not qualify for equitable indemnity under California law. To obtain such indemnity, HRC needed to demonstrate actual, potential, or reasonably apparent liability, which it failed to establish. The court analyzed the applicability of strict liability and concluded that it did not apply, as the transaction involved services rather than products, with the primary cause of injury being a 'track service.' Furthermore, the court held that under California Civil Code § 1431.2(a), liability for non-economic damages is several rather than joint, precluding HRC from being liable for DCC's non-economic damages due to negligence. As HRC was not at risk of liability under either strict liability or negligence, its indemnity claim was denied, and the court's ruling was affirmed without publication intent.
Legal Issues Addressed
Equitable Indemnity Under California Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that HRC must demonstrate actual, potential, or reasonably apparent liability to qualify for equitable indemnity, which it failed to do.
Reasoning: Under California law, HRC could qualify for equitable indemnity if it held a reasonable belief that the settlement was necessary, regardless of whether it had any interest to protect. However, HRC must demonstrate that it faced actual, potential, or reasonably apparent liability, which it failed to do.
Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages Under California Civil Code § 1431.2(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: HRC was not liable for non-economic damages due to DCC's negligence because liability for non-economic damages among defendants is several, not joint.
Reasoning: California Civil Code § 1431.2(a) stipulates that liability for non-economic damages among defendants is several, not joint, meaning that settling parties cannot be held liable for non-economic damages stemming from a non-settling party's negligence.
Strict Liability in Service-Oriented Transactionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that strict liability does not apply because the services provided by HRC were the primary cause of the injury, and California law does not extend strict liability to services.
Reasoning: It concludes that strict liability does not apply, as California law does not extend this doctrine to services where product sale is incidental.