Markvicka v. Brodhead-Garrett Co. 76 F.R.D. 205 (D. Neb. 1977) Markvicka was injured using a machine in woodworking class. Markvicka sued Brodhead-Garrett, the manufacturer of the machine. Brodhead-Garrett used a Rule 14 motion to implead the school where the accident occurred (Ralston). Brodhead-Garrett argued that the accident was not fault of their machine but due to Ralston's poor maintenance and inadequate supervision. Brodhead-Garrett was looking to indemnify Ralston. Basically that means that, if the Court awards recovery to Markvicka, then Ralston has to pay, and Brodhead-Garrett doesn't. Ralston appealed the Rule 14 motion. The Appellate Court affirmed the Rule 14 motion and added Ralston as a co-defendant. The Appellate Court found that Rule 14(a) permits the joinder of a party who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Brodhead-Garrett's complaint shows that Ralston "may be liable," therefore the Rule 14 motion is proper. The Court noted that Brodhead-Garrett should make a claim for contribution, not indemnification. Contribution means that there are two defendants, both of whom have some liability. Indemnification allows one defendant to shift the entire burden of liability onto another. The Court found that indemnification is not available when both parties are negligent to a certain degree. Brodhead-Garrett was permitted to amend its complaint to allege contribution as opposed to indemnification.