Before Reid and Washington, Associate Judges, and King, Senior
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Washington, Associate Judge
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(Hon. Lee F. Satterfield, Trial Judge)
(Argued March 8, 2000 Decided April 13, 2000)
The plaintiff in this litigation sustained injuries as a result of falling into a mis-leveled elevator. She brought a negligence action against the appellants, Quadrangle Development Corporation ("Quadrangle") and QDC Property Management Company ("QDC"), and the appellee, Otis Elevator Company ("Otis"). A jury found all three negligent. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Otis on Quadrangle and QDC's cross-claim for indemnification. We affirm. *fn1
On Friday, May 1, 1999, elevator number five had mis-leveled in an office building located at 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. An Otis mechanic had worked on the elevator until 7:00 p.m. before leaving for the evening. At approximately 7:00 a.m., on May 4, 1999, the Quadrangle building engineer reported in his daily log that he inspected the premises. At 9:00 a.m., he made a notation that elevator number five was not leveling and that Otis' mechanic was working on it. At approximately 9:30 a.m., Jennifer Thomas, the plaintiff below, waited for an elevator in the lobby. When the doors to elevator number five opened, Thomas stepped forward and fell into the mis-leveled elevator.
Quadrangle's building mechanic testified during trial that it was Otis' practice to lock down the elevator when repairing mis-leveling elevators. However, Otis conceded that the mechanic did not follow the company's protocol. Thomas' expert witness testified that the building manager, aware that the elevator was not level, should have put barriers in front of it or should have taken steps to restrict access of the public to elevator number five. Employees of building management testified that barricades and yellow tape were available on site, and that they had previously used barricades, tape, and signs to warn and alert the public that an elevator was not working properly and to restrict access to the elevator. Furthermore, Quadrangle's building mechanic testified that it was the practice of Quadrangle to tape off the door of the elevator and set out barricades when there was a potential for danger to the public.
A jury found Quadrangle, QDC, and Otis jointly and severally liable and awarded Thomas damages in the amount of $350,000. At the conclusion of the trial, Quadrangle and QDC requested judgment on the cross-claim against Otis for indemnification. The request for indemnification was denied based on the jury's finding in favor of Thomas and against Quadrangle, QDC, and Otis. Quadrangle, QDC, and Otis moved for post- trial relief from the judgment entered in favor to Thomas. Otis also requested that the trial court enter judgment in its favor on the cross- claim of Quadrangle and QDC for indemnification. The trial court denied all post-trial motions as to the verdict entered in favor of Thomas. In a separate order, the trial court dismissed with prejudice Quadrangle and QDC's cross-claims against Otis for the reasons stated in the memorandum of Otis. Quadrangle and QDC timely appealed the denial of their request for indemnification.
Quadrangle and QDC challenge the trial court's refusal to order Otis to indemnify them for their share of liability for Thomas' injuries. Quadrangle and QDC specifically argue that they are entitled to indemnification *fn2 because Thomas' injuries were caused by the direct negligence of Otis in failing to lock down the elevator on which its mechanic was working. In other words, because Quadrangle and QDC had reason to believe that the elevator was not accessible to the public due to Otis' practice of locking down elevators in repair, they were not negligent in failing to put up warnings and barricades. *fn3
A duty to indemnify may arise from an express contract provision or, in the absence of a contract, where indemnification is required to prevent injustice. East Penn Mfg. Co. v. Pineda, 578 A.2d 1113, 1126 (D.C. 1990). Where there is no express contract provision, an obligation to indemnify may be implied in fact on an implied contract theory or implied in law in order to achieve equitable results. Id. at 1127 n.20. We have accepted the following articulation of the concept of indemnity:
Indemnity is a shifting of responsibility from the shoulders of one person to another; and the duty to indemnify has been recognized in cases where the equities have supported it. A court's view of the equities may have been based on the relation of the parties to one another, and the consequent duty owed; or it may be because of a significant difference in the kind or quality of their conduct. District of Columbia v. Washington Hosp. Center, 722 A.2d 332, 339 (D.C. 1998) (citing R. & G. Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Curtin, 596 A.2d 530, 545 (D.C. 1991) (quoting East Penn, 578 A.2d at 1128 n.20 (quoting W. Prosser & R. Keeton, The Law of Torts, § 51, at 344 (1984))). The basis for indemnity is restitution, East Penn, 578 A.2d at 1127, generally involving the "shifting of the entire loss from one who has paid it to another who would be unjustly enriched at the indemnitee's expense by the indemnitee's discharge of the obligation." Washington Hosp. Center, 722 A.2d at 340 (citing R. & G. Orthopedic, 596 A.2d at 545 (quoting East Penn, 578 A.2d at 1128 n.20 (citation omitted))). Furthermore, indemnity is "restricted generally to situations where the indemnitee's conduct was not as blameworthy as that of the indemnitor" when based upon equitable principles. Id. (citing R. & G. Orthopedic, 596 A.2d at 546).
In "implied in law," or "equitable" indemnity, "the obligation is based on variations in the relative degrees of fault of joint tortfeasors, and the assumption that when the parties are not in pari delicto, the traditional view that no wrongdoer may recover from another may compel inequitable and harsh results." East Penn, 578 A.2d at 1127 n.20 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 886B comment a (further citations omitted)). A duty to indemnify may also be implied "out of a relationship between the parties," to prevent a result "which is regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory." Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., Inc., 565 A.2d 293, 297 (D.C. 1989). This concept "is based on the well-established theory that if one [tortfeasor] breaches a duty owed to another and the breach causes injury, the former should compensate the latter." Id. at 298. "In order to establish the right to this particular type of implied indemnity, the obligation must arise out of a specific duty of defined nature-separate from the injury to the [plaintiff]-owed to the third party . . . .," and there must also be a special legal relationship between the tortfeasors. Id. at 299 n.8. *fn4 Furthermore, where both joint ...