Masonry Magazine August 1964 Page. 19
In Union 6 N.Y. 2d 723, the court held that it was the intent of the parties which governed, and stated: "Such an agreement is not against public policy. There exists the requirement, however, that the contract express a clear and unequivocal intent to indemnify a party against his own negligence. This does not mean, in order to warrant a construction, that it was so intended, that contract must contain express language referring to the negligence of the indemnitee."
It seems reasonable to state that the latest cases depart from the previous holdings and construe contracts for indemnity in a much broader fashion. A case in point with the latest trend is found elsewhere in Southern Pacific v. Fellows, 22 C.A. 2d 87, 71 P. 2d 75 (1937), in which the California court considered a case involving a railroad company which contracted with a contractor, by reason of which the contractor commenced construction of a building for the railroad. There was an indemnity clause in this contract reading: "Contractor expressly agrees to indemnify and save railroad harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damage, injury and liability, howsoever the same may be caused, resulting directly or indirectly from work covered by this agreement."
An injury was sustained by an employee of the railroad as a result of the railroad's own negligence, but it was argued that this resulted, at least "indirectly from the work covered by the agreement." The court stated that the clause, in its opinion, was "so sweeping and all embracing in its terms, that although it does not contain an express stipulation indemnifying appellant against liability caused by its own negligence, it accomplishes the same purpose." In view of this decision, the lower court's verdict was reversed, and the agreement held a valid imposition of responsibility.
Another case which was recently handed down by the Appellate Division of New York, First Department, is General Electric Co. v. Hapzel & Buehler, Inc., 10 A.D. 2d 40, 240 N.Y. Sup. 2d 636. In a three-to-two decision on June 11, 1963, General Electric Co., as the general contractor, sought to recover from a subcontractor, the amount of a judgment General Electric Co. had paid an injured employee of the said subcontractor. In a negligence action, General Electric Co. had been found liable only because of its "obligation to indemnify the owner-builder." Against the subcontractor, General Electric Co. sought recovery on a hold harmless agreement wherein the subcontractor agreed to hold harm- (continued on page 20)
belt speed 400 ft. per minute... places materials up to 37 ft.... hydraulic raising mechanism... materials unload directly from truck
CONTRACTORS CONVEYOR
AEROIL PRODUCTS COMPANY
69 Wesley St., South Hackensack N.J.
ASONRY August, 1964
19