cross claim in Missouri

2006As the Erwin court explained, “[t]he rule in Cross was rooted in the common law and in society’s reproach toward persons who are voluntarily intoxicated” and the Cross rule “merely treats a sober person and a voluntarily intoxicated person as equally responsible for conduct.” Erwin, 848 S.W.2d at 482 .

2006As the Erwin court explained, “[t]he rule in Cross was rooted in the common law and in society’s reproach toward persons who are voluntarily intoxicated” and the Cross rule “merely treats a sober person and a voluntarily intoxicated person as equally responsible for conduct.” Erwin, 848 S.W.2d at 482 .

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1978For other jurisdictions which have adopted this view, see, e. g., Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800 , 77 N.W.2d 23 (1956) (equitable distribution applied to active but unintentional negligence of drivers of two other vehicles colliding with plaintiffs vehicle); Packard v. Whitten, 274 A.2d 169 (Me.1971) (relative fault among two defendant automobile drivers and a taxicab company against which the two defendants had filed a cross claim, plaintiffs being passengers in the taxicab); Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.1977) (relative culpability of the manufacturer of defective eq

1977Comparing the facts of this case to those in Barb v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Inc., supra, the court held that C.E.S. would be entitled to a cross claim for indemnity if it could prove the alleged negligence of Home Service and that those acts were done “without the knowledge, acquis-cence [sic] or consent of C.E.S. . even though plaintiff had theretofore recovered against both defendants under res ipsa.” In McDonnell Aircraft Corp. v. Hartman-Hanks-Walsh Painting Co., 323 S.W.2d 788 (Mo.1959), Hartman, plaintiff’s employer, contracted with McDonnell to paint its plant.

1974In most instances, a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a necessary predicate to a cross claim for indemnity, although in some cases the claim for indemnity follows a settlement with the plaintiff rather than a final judgment, as for example in Western Casualty and Surety Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 413 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. App.1967).

1967Beaumont states the question as whether “(i)n an action for common law or non-contractual indemnity, such as the cause of action stated by the cross claim in this case, can the indemnitee recover his attorneys’ fees and expenses even though he was not held to be liable to the original plaintiff?” Beaumont concedes that there are no precisely applicable Missouri cases but argues that the basic theory of “an implied contract of indemnity,” as expounded in the excellent opinion in Hunter v. De Luxe Drive-In Theaters, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 255 , should be extended to permit recovery, as here, “by su

1967Beaumont states the question as whether “(i)n an action for common law or non-contractual indemnity, such as the cause of action stated by the cross claim in this case, can the indemnitee recover his attorneys’ fees and expenses even though he was not held to be liable to the original plaintiff?” Beaumont concedes that there are no precisely applicable Missouri cases but argues that the basic theory of “an implied contract of indemnity,” as expounded in the excellent opinion in Hunter v. De Luxe Drive-In Theaters, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 255 , should be extended to permit recovery, as here, “by su

1957Levin v. Caldwell, Mo. Sup., 285 S.W.2d 655 .

1957An instruction in all material respects identical with instruction 14 given in the instant case was approved in State v. Roberts, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 190 , where, at page 192, the court said: “Admonitions of the character as used by the trial court set forth supra have been held to be proper in many cases.” In State v. Baker, Mo., 293 S.W.2d *100 900, inquiring of a jury prior to verdict how the jury stood numerically, then inquiring whether the jurors thought there was a chance of arriving at a verdict, and then ordering the jury returned to their jury room for further deliberations, was approved

1936Goldberg & Son, supra.] It is claimed that there are other- possible causes of the casualty other than the defect in the machine, that is, that it could have been caused by the vibration of the machine; that plaintiff might have touched the cross bar which led from, the clutch lever to the clutch (there was evidence on the part off the defendant that the machine was easily thrown into gear and that contact with the cross bar might cause it to start) and defendant klso says it might have started up by reason of the clutch rolling with the motor or that, in fact, plaintiff may have left the -clu