## Facts

- Thomas Warren died on May 1, 1992, at a New Jersey worksite during removal of underground fuel tanks when he fell from the bucket of a Case-manufactured backhoe and was run over.
- The project chain was: Tenacre Foundation contracted with T.A. Fitzpatrick Associates, Inc.; Fitzpatrick subcontracted to ECRACOM, Inc.; ECRACOM subcontracted to Thomas J. O’Beirne & Company (Warren’s employer).
- Warren’s estate representative sued Case Power & Equipment Co. in federal court on a strict products-liability failure-to-warn theory, alleging inadequate warnings about the danger of riding in the backhoe bucket.
- Case denied liability and asserted that Warren’s own negligence caused the injury.
- Case sought leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) to file a third-party complaint against Fitzpatrick and ECRACOM for contribution, alleging their negligent safety omissions contributed to the accident.
- Fitzpatrick and ECRACOM opposed impleader, arguing negligence-based third-party claims were outside the strict-liability case and would complicate and delay the litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 14(a) permits a defendant sued in strict products liability to implead third parties on a different theory (negligence) for contribution.
2. Whether New Jersey contribution law treats parties potentially liable under different theories as joint tortfeasors for purposes of contribution in a single-injury case.
3. Whether discretionary considerations under Rule 14(a) (timing, prejudice, delay, and potential jury confusion) warranted allowing impleader.

## Decision

- The court granted Case leave to file the third-party complaint against Fitzpatrick and ECRACOM.
- The court held that Rule 14(a) allows impleader for contribution even when the third-party claim rests on a different liability theory than the plaintiff’s claim, so long as the third-party claim is contingent on the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff.
- Applying New Jersey law, the court concluded contribution could be sought among alleged joint tortfeasors whose conduct combined to cause a single injury, even if their potential liability arises under different theories (strict liability and negligence).
- The court found the motion timely and determined impleader would not cause undue prejudice, significant delay, or improper complication, and would permit efficient allocation of responsibility in one action.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 14(a) permits impleader of a nonparty who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim; the third-party claim must be secondary and dependent on the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff.
- A defendant sued under one theory may implead a third party for contribution under a different theory when substantive state law provides a right to contribution among those responsible for the same injury.
- In diversity cases, state law governs the substantive entitlement to contribution; federal procedural law governs the mechanism and timing for impleader.
- Courts have discretion to deny impleader based on factors including timeliness, risk of delay, prejudice to existing parties, and whether adding parties would confuse or complicate trial.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the manufacturer, sued on a strict products-liability failure-to-warn theory, to implead allegedly negligent contractors for New Jersey-law contribution because the claims were contingent on the manufacturer’s potential liability and joint adjudication would allow allocation of fault without undue delay or prejudice.


Erkins v. Case Power & Equip. Co., 164 F.R.D. 31 (D.N.J. 1995)