|
1281 A cross claim may be the subject of a subsequent action for malicious prosecution; in a malicious prosecution action against an attorney, the question of whether the attorney had probable cause to assert a claim is a question of law to be determined by applying an objective standard; a defendant's attorney may have probable cause to assert a cross claim against another defendant for equitable indemnity even though s/he believes and asserts that the plaintiff's injury did not result from negligence by any defendant.CitationBIXLER v GOULDING (Malicious Cross Complaint) 45 CA4 1179 [See: Crowley v Katleman 8 C4 666, T/AT 12/94; Sheldon Appel v Albert & Oliker 47 C3 863; Coleman v Gulf 41 C3 782]
|
|
