 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis v. Vasquez5/30/2003
ment") (emphasis and citation omitted). Thus, where one event damaged person and property, an action to recover for personal injury must be brought at the same time as an action to recover for damage to property. See Raymer v. Hi-Line Transp., Inc., 15 Utah 2d 427, 394 P.2d 383 (Utah 1964); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 cmt. c, illus. 1-2, cmt. g, illus. 13-14 (1982) (illustrating examples similar to this case where rule against splitting causes of action precludes second action).
The third element of claim preclusion under Snyder, finality of judgment on the merits, is also met here. It is clear that the judgment was final and precluded Dennis from pursuing any remedy or initiating any further proceedings in small claims court. Thus, the only remedy left available to him was to appeal the small claims judgment to the district court. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-6-10(1) (2002) (stating " ither party may appeal the judgment in a small claims action to the district court"). Accordingly, we conclude the judgment of the small claims court was final.
" judgment on the merits may be made at any stage of the litigation, so long as the district court rendered judgment based upon a proper[ ] application of the relevant law to the facts of the case." Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 6, n.6, 44 P.3d 663. " judgment is on the merits if it completely disposes of an underlying cause of action, or determines that plaintiff has no cause of action . . . ." 50 C.J.S. Judgment § 728 (1997) (emphasis added).
Here the small claims court unambiguously determined, after hearing opposing arguments from both parties, that Dennis had "No Cause of Action." Thus, the small claims court applied the "relevant law to the facts of the case," Miller, 2002 UT 6 at n.6, and "determine that [Dennis] has no cause of action." 50 C.J.S. Judgment § 728. Accordingly, we conclude the judgment was on the merits.
CONCLUSION
Because Vasquez established all three prongs of the claim preclusion test, we determine the trial court was correct in ruling that claim preclusion barred Dennis from bringing a second suit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge
WE CONCUR:
Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge
Page 1 2 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|