The more I read, the more panicked I get, because the more I realize how much I DON'T KNOW! Today's topic was Civ Pro. Important, because it's one of those hot topics to be tested this time around. I thought I knew it. But I thought wrong. Now tell me, is this correct?
A plaintiff sues defendant for personal injuries stemming from negligence. He can’t later sue for property damage arising from the same negligent act as the previous suit because of res judicata? Because res judicata bars an action arising out of the same transaction?
I'm losing my mind. Every essay I go through in civ pro, there are parts that I'm truly baffled by. This is not good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Talk about the blind leading the blind ... Here I am giving Civ Pro advice. This means one of two things, either; I've made some progress in the last week, or; I still haven't get a clue but my good friend "Irrational Confidence" has come back to visit for a couple of weeks. Or, of course, I've completely lost my mind (plus the above two choices.)
Okay, here's my comment on your question. "Yes, unless." What you said is true unless you're in a Primary Rights state, like California, in which case Res Judicata will not prevent the second issue from being tried.
Otherwise, because it should have been litigated in the first trial, it's barred by Res Judicata. And this is one of the distinctions that keeps coming up between CA and Fed law when people discuss what they're likely to test.
Hi there, I have a nifty little outline for Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel that I think makes it pretty clear. Or at least clearer. It is too long to paste here, but if you want it, or if anyone wants it, email me at blondeblogger71@yahoo.com and I will be happy to pass it along.
The way I keep the CA Res Judicata distinction straight is to remember that one can sue someone in a PI claim and lose and still sue them again on a separate claim for property damages, and not be barred by r.j. That's the essence of the CA/minority primary rights doctrine.
Dont trip - its not that hard. Apply Res Judicata MECHANICALLY!!! ELEMENT BY ELEMENT.
The law that applies for RJ depends on which ct adjuciated case 1 (i.e. of fed c.t was case 1 then fed law applies in case 2 even if case 2 is in Cal, and vise versa)
1) same configuration of parties in case 1 and case 2 (i.e. same P suing the same D - this is a must, forget privies and all that bull shit)
2) final judgment on the MERITS (i.e. everything is final and on the merits for RJ purposes BUT dimissal for improper venue, IPJ/SMJ, and/or indispensable parties FRCP 19 and the Cal counterpart).
3) same "CLAIM/cause of action." (in Federal court this means that the claim at issue/subject to RJ attack arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as case 1. BUT, California has adopted the "primary rights doctrine" which means that a P gets 1 cause of action for every right invaded. Therefore, if P suffered personal and property damages in case 1, she can sue for prop damages in case 2, when she sued for personal injuries in case 1, EVEN IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION as case 1. Property rights are different than personal injury rights in California. Fed law says "you are fucking stupid Cal b/c P could have sued for both invasions in case 1, so barred in case 2).
*CAVEAT - as for the same "claim" Fed and Cal law are in accord with breach of contract actions - you only get to sue once for all breaches up to the point the commencement of suit number 1.
*rest easy though because as for issue preculsion/collateral estoppel, cal and fed law are the same.
Post a Comment