|
4386 REVIEW GRANTED Recreational use immunity that prevented a power company from being liable to a plaintiff injured while attempting to retrieve his kite from the company's power line does not prevent the power company from being liable for contractual indemnity to the property owner over whose land the power company had an easement for the power line; the rule that a party cannot be required to indemnify another for damages resulting from injury sustained by a third person unless that party is itself liable to the third person does not apply to a claim for contractual indemnity.
PRINCE v PG&E (Contractual Indemnity) 145 CA4 289 [See: CivC 846; Jackson v PG&E 94 CA4 1110, T/AT 2/02; Bay Development v Superior Court 50 C3 1012]
|
|