Does the term "passive/active" or "primary/secondary" apply to a plaintiff who is not a passive tortfeasor?

3 As an aside, we note the "passive/active" and "primary/secondary" terminologies are unnecessary baggage on the total indemnity cart. Worse, they are ambiguous and likely to lead to erroneous results. In our view, it makes more sense to determine whether a party's liability is derivative or vicarious, i.e., is it factually innocent of any wrongdoing but nevertheless liable based on a statute, public policy, or a particular legal relationship? A passive tortfeasor is nonetheless a tortfeasor and probably ought to be subject to section 877.6. Several of the majority rule cases are distinguishable on that basis, a point we should have made in Angelus. (See, e.g., City of Sacramento v. Gemsch Investment Co., supra, 115 Cal.App.3d 869, 171 Cal.Rptr. 764.)