1967

If an indemnity clause does not address itself to the issue of an indemnitee’s negligence, it is referred to as a “general” indemnity clause. “An indemnity clause phrased in general terms will not be interpreted… to provide indemnity for consequences resulting from the indemnitee’s own actively negligent acts.”

The failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty imposed by law is mere nonfeasance, which does not preclude indemnity under a general clause. Because the owners negligence was passive rather than active, it was entitled to indemnity.

Traynor, Markley v. Beagle, 66 Cal.2d 951

Published by IpSecy

bizniz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: