
    CHATTANOOGA BOILER AND TANK COMPANY, Appellant, v. William RITTENBERRY and Monsanto Corp. and Monsanto Textiles Company, Appellees.
    No. KK-211.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 9, 1979.
    Robert D. Bell, of Fisher, Bell, Hahn, Winn & Rubel, Pensacola, for appellant.
    J. Nixon Daniel, III, of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment notwithstanding verdict entered in favor of Monsanto, the employer of Rittenberry, following the entry of a verdict in favor of the third party tortfeasor, Chattanooga, on its claim for indemnity against Monsanto. Chattanooga had alleged Monsanto was actively negligent in causing certain injuries suffered by its employee, Rittenberry, during the course of employment, while Chattanooga was only passively negligent. There can be no claim for indemnity, under the circumstances, by a third party tortfeasor against an injured party’s employer. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978).

The judgment notwithstanding verdict is AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

BOOTH, J., specially concurring.

BOOTH, Judge,

specially concurring.

The facts here do not bring cause within the rule of Home Indemnity v. Edwards, 360 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and cases cited therein, therefore, I concur.  