CIV PRO 1
PROBLEM#11
B’s car smashes into A’s car. A incurs property damage and personal injuries. A sues B for property damage and wins. A files another suit against B. A seeks damages for personal injuries based on the same accident. B answers this suit. His answer includes the affirmative defense of res judicata.
B also decides to counterclaim against A, alleging that A caused the accident. B then files a summary judgment motion based on his affirmative defense. A files a cross-motion for summary judgment on the basis that B’s claim is precluded by the prior litigation.
Should the court grant either motion? Why?
...... Hypo #2:......
A plaintiff named Paul sued Daniel for property damage to his car (fender-bender). Paul may have incurred personal injuries during the accident, but did not claim them in his first action against Denny.
Paul won that first suit. A couple months later, Paul filed a second lawsuit. He therein claims a soft-tissue personal injury to his back. Daniel has a crystal clear basis for prevailing on his res judicata defense to Paul’s second suit. Can Paul possibly overcome Daniel’s Suit Two RJ defense?
...... Hypo #3:
Suit One: A --- PI & prop damages ---> B & C
...... A’s Complaint & B/Cs’ Answers (general denials) are the only S1 pleadings.
...... Judgment: “We the jury find for defendants B and C.”
Suit Two: B --- PI & prop damages ---> C
...... Issue: Can C assert S1 as bar to S2?
\
\
\
...... Hypo #4:
The question for eachof the three scenarios below is the same:
What issues, if any, were necessarily decided as a result of each judgment below? Such issues, thus resolved, could then serve as a basis for collateral estoppel in the event of a second suit involving the identical issue.
This exercise will help fill the gap about how to look at the S1 facts, and its resulting judgment, to determine just what issue has been actually litigated in the first suit. An understanding of this leg of collateral estoppel will help you analyze whether the identical issue has been raised in a subsequent lawsuit:
Scenario 4(a): B’s car smashes into A’s car. A sues B in a contributory (not comparative) negligence jurisdiction for damages sustained in the collision. B pleads and presents three defenses at trial:
(1) the statute of limitations expired prior to A’s filing;
(2) B was not liable; and
(3) A was contributorily negligent.
A wins the suit (“Judgment for A”).
Which of these issues, if any, was necessarily decided?
Scenario 4(b): Same as Scenario 4(a).
Difference: B wins (“Judgment for B”).
Which of these issues, if any, was necessarily decided?
Scenario 4(c): B’s car and C’s car both collide with A’s car. A sues B. B answers. These are the only pleadings in this first suit. The jury verdict is as follows: “B and C are negligent. Damages are $57,000.13.”
A then sues C in a subsequent suit.Could either A or C employ collateral estoppel in the second suit?