181
Yeazell, pp. 836-838
Facts: The Parks’ car collided with an Illinois Central
train. The Parks sued the railroad for personal
injuries to Bertha and loss of consortium to Jessie. Bertha won, but Jessie got nothing. Then Jessie sued separately for personal
injuries. The railroad moved for summary
judgment, and the trial judge said that Jessie’s claim was not barred. The trial judge also said Jessie was not
barred on the issue of contributory negligence.
The railroad appealed.
Issue: Is Jessie’s claim precluded? Are any particular issues precluded?
Rule: Claim preclusion precludes the relitigation of a cause
of action for which there has been a final judgment. However, issue preclusion applies if the causes
of action are not the same but some of the issues raised in the second suit
were “actually litigated and determined” in the first suit.
Analysis: The court says that claim preclusion doesn’t apply
because the railroad admits that the new suit is based on a distinct cause of
action from the first suit. The court
says that issue preclusion may apply to the matter of Jessie’s contributory
negligence. However, the court finds
that the jury could have either found for the railroad based on a finding of contributory
negligence or Jessie’s failure to meet the burden of proof. Since there’s no way of knowing why the jury
came to the conclusion they did, it’s okay to try the issue over again because
the court thinks it wasn’t really “litigated and determined” with finality.
Conclusion: Jessie is allowed to proceed with his action against
the railroad for his personal injuries.