Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.

Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. (Proctor) (defendant) manufactured and sold a garnett (a machine with large chains and pulleys that operated its gears and rollers) to Comet Fibers, Inc. (Comet). As delivered to Comet, the garnett had no safety devices, but the Proctor-Comet sales contract required Comet to install all necessary safety guards for the machine’s exposed moving parts in accordance with applicable local laws. The contract did not require Comet to indemnify Proctor under any circumstances. Comet employed Hector Rosado (plaintiff). Rosado lost his thumb and multiple fingers when his hand contacted the garnett’s unshielded chain and gears. After Rosado sued Proctor under a strict-liability theory, Proctor brought a third-party claim against Comet seeking indemnification and contribution. The supreme court dismissed Proctor’s indemnification claim and Proctor’s contribution claim was extinguished when Comet settled with Rosado. Proctor then reached its own settlement with Rosado but appealed the dismissal of its indemnification claim against Comet. The appellate division affirmed. Proctor appealed again, arguing that (1) strict liability is comparable to vicarious liability and thus Proctor should have been permitted to pursue its indemnification claim and (2) Comet’s breach of its contractual duty to install safety devices caused Rosado’s injuries, so equity requires Comet to pay for the injuries.