![]() During the repair, "there was an explosion and fire" that injured Mann. Mann had been injured in the course of attempting to repair a 500 inch hydraulic cylinder that had been sold to Mann's employer, Wheelabrator. The facts in this case are complex, although largely undisputed, and may be summarized as follows: Arthur Mann and his wife, Sandra, commenced a personal injury action against Peerless and Hunger. Because we disagree with the court's analysis of Hunger's liability and conclude that Peerless made no payment attributable to Hunger's negligence, we vacate the judgment. On appeal, Hunger contends that the court erred in denying its motion for satisfaction of judgment, in finding that it was liable under an indemnity agreement, and in denying its request to amend its answer to the Peerless cross-claim. ![]() The judgment was rendered in the context of a personal injury action brought by Arthur Mann against Peerless and Hunger. (Peerless) on its cross-claim seeking indemnification from Hunger. a/k/a Hunger Hydraulics (Hunger) appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Delahanty, J.) in favor of Peerless Division, Lear Siegler, Inc. United States Special Hydraulic Cylinders Corp. *907 Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ. Kircher, Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, WI, for appellee. Badger Jr., (orally), Richardson, Whitman, Large & Badger, P.C., Bangor, Mark A. ![]() Bloom, Herschel, Accettola, Bloom & Mills, Toledo, OH, for appellant.įrederick J. Haddow, (orally), Farrell, Rosenblatt & Russell, Bangor, Charles E. UNITED STATES SPECIAL HYDRAULIC CYLINDERS CORP. PEERLESS DIVISION, LEAR SIEGLER, INC., et al.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |