## Facts

- Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha operated stockyards, tracks, and switching power in South Omaha, Nebraska, and received railroad cars from connecting carriers on a transfer track for switching within its yards for a fixed fee paid by the railroad.
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, a common carrier, placed inbound cars on the transfer track for delivery to consignees located in Union’s yards and collected freight charges from shippers for delivery to those destinations.
- Burlington delivered a refrigerator car for Hammond Packing Company to the transfer track for Union to switch to Hammond’s location in the yards.
- The car’s brake mechanism was defective because a nut above the wheel on the brake staff was not fastened; the defect appeared as if fastened and was discoverable upon reasonable inspection.
- Union assigned employee Edward Goodwin to handle the car; due to the defect, he was thrown from the car and injured while performing his work.
- Goodwin sued Union and obtained a judgment based on Union’s negligence in failing to inspect for employee safety; the judgment was affirmed on appeal, and Union paid it.
- Union then sued Burlington in federal court seeking reimbursement of the amount paid, alleging Burlington’s negligence in furnishing a defective car was the primary cause of the injury and of Union’s liability.
- The case proceeded on the premise that both Union and Burlington could have discovered the defect by reasonable inspection and both failed to do so.

## Issues

1. Whether a party held liable for an injury may obtain indemnity or contribution from another allegedly negligent party when both were negligent in substantially the same way.
2. Whether the fact that one party had the first duty or opportunity to inspect makes that party “primarily responsible” so as to permit indemnity despite the general rule barring contribution among joint tortfeasors.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court answered the certified question in favor of Burlington and denied Union indemnity or contribution.
- The Court held that, because both companies were wrongdoers guilty of like neglect of duty in failing to inspect before putting the car in use, Union could not shift its loss to Burlington.
- The fact that Burlington’s duty to inspect arose first did not place the case within any exception allowing recovery from a “primarily responsible” wrongdoer.

## Legal Principles

- At common law, a wrongdoer compelled to pay damages generally has no right to indemnity or contribution from another joint wrongdoer when the damage results from their joint or concurrent misconduct.
- Courts may allow indemnity in limited situations where the party seeking reimbursement is only secondarily liable and another party’s conduct is the primary cause of the injury.
- Concurrent negligence of the same character—such as a shared failure to make a reasonable inspection when each owes an independent duty of care—does not qualify for the primary-wrongdoer exception.
- A prior or earlier-arising duty in one party, without more, does not convert otherwise coequal negligence into primary versus secondary liability for purposes of indemnity.

## Conclusion

Because Union and Burlington each owed and breached a duty to inspect the car before use, their concurrent, similar negligence made them joint wrongdoers, and Union—after paying its employee’s judgment—had no right to indemnity or contribution from Burlington merely because Burlington’s inspection duty arose first.


Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. Chi., Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co., 196 U.S. 217 (1905)