finding that the right to indemnification resides in the party who “without active fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another, and for which he himself is only secondarily liable;” even a murderer who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but who played an active role in the events that resulted in injury, could not recover legal damages
How later courts described this case
- finding that the right to indemnification resides in the party who “without active fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another, and for which he himself is only secondarily liable;” even a murderer who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but who played an active role in the events that resulted in injury, could not recover legal damages
- offering that DiNardo “alleges injuries which are not directly attributable to his criminal convictions, but instead may have been caused directly (or substantially) by [Appellees’] negligence, such as ‘severe emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures’” (citation omitted)
- concurring and dissenting opinion by then Justice, now former Chief Justice Nix
- Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by then Justice now Chief Justice Nix
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*255 HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
[1,2] I join Mr. Justice Flaherty’s opinion announcing the judgment of the Court in holding there can be no recovery, as a matter of policy, for these plaintiffs’ litigation related costs. Moreover, I also concur in his reversal of the grant of defendant’s demurrer to those portions of the complaint arguably seeking non-litigation related damages. If plaintiffs in fact seek, and can prove, aggravation of the incompetent plaintiff’s illness by virtue of the hospital’s negligence in not preventing him from setting the fire, recovery is available under well-settled principles, recognized by Mr. Justice Flaherty. However, if it is later determined, as suggested by Mr. Justice Nix in his concurring and dissenting opinion, that the only damages plaintiffs suffered as a result of the hospital’s negligence were related to the civil and criminal actions brought against their ward, I would deny recovery as a matter of law. I believe this is implied by the majority. On demurrer, however, I am unwilling to read the complaint as limited solely to damages flowing from the litigation.