Get these flashcards, study & pass exams. For free! Even on iPhone/Android!

Assoc. hired repo co. to take unpaid for tractor.  P sued Assoc., the loan co., b/c of broken leg and property damage that arose from the repo.  Assoc. impleaded the repo. co they had hired on indemnity.  P and repo co. (Clark) appealed.

H - this was appropriate, good trial package, derivative liability.

P was in a cult.  Parents hired deprogrammer, P sued deprogrammer for violating K'stal rights.  D wanted to implead the church, saying church and P had a conspiracy against him, etc.

H - no causal connection betw the claims.  The first claim was during the deprogramming, proposed impled claim was after the filing of the main lawsuit.  Would complicate the case.

P got trichinosis, sued pork cooker co.  Pork cooker co wanted to implead her school cafeteria, saying that she'd caught the trichinosis from school and not from cooking at home on their cooker.

H - not allowed - not derivative liability. 

Clark
Augenti
Klotz