 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Downing12/15/1999
ied the limits of collateral estoppel by applying its reasoning to hypothetical situations stating:
f the circuit court case against the trooper had been tried first, an unfavorable jury verdict would have estopped plaintiff's claim against the State; but a verdict for the plaintiff would not have been binding upon the State because it was not a party to the circuit court case .....If the Board of Claims decision had been favorable to the plaintiff, the trooper would not be estopped to defend the circuit court suit because he was not a party to the case before the Board of Claims. Id.
The case at bar appears to be analogous to hypothetical situations discussed by the Fourakre Court, and we agree with that Court's reasoning that a party, not given the opportunity to litigate in a prior action, is not bound by that holding. Id at 488 - 89.
Privity, within the meaning of the doctrine of res judicata, is privity as it exists in relation to the subject matter of the litigation. Cantrell v. Burnett & Henderson Co., 187 Tenn. 552, 216 S.W.2d 307, 309 (1948)(quoting 30 Am.Jur. at 957-958). In Shelley v. Gipson, 218 Tenn. 1, 400 S.W.2d 709 (1966), a rural mail-carrier, Shelley, sued the Gipsons for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision while Shelley was performing his duties as a mail- carrier. The Gipsons filed suit against Shelley in a separate action which was removed by Shelley to federal court pursuant to federal law and proceeded as a tort action against the United States under the federal tort claims act. The federal judge in the case found that the plaintiff, Richard Gipson, was guilty of proximate contributory negligence and therefore could not recover and further found that Shelley was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident. After this holding in the federal court, the Gipsons filed a plea of res judicata in the instant case filed by Shelley for his personal injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court correctly sustained the plea of res judicata and dismissed Shelley's suit. In discussing privity, the Court states:
Privity is based on the relationship of two parties for the purposes of res judicata, only as it pertains to the subject matter of the suits.
In a situation where a party is trying to bring suit against a servant after having been unsuccessful against the master on a vicarious liability claim, the servant is in privity with the master and he can properly plead res judicata against the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit against the master had been dismissed. Caldwell v. Kelly, 202 Tenn. 104, 302 S.W.2d 815 (1957). In the instant case, however, the servant, Shelley, is not the defendant in the second suit, but the plaintiff suing the original plaintiff in the former suit. The significant difference, of course, is that here the postal employee is asserting his interest for damages which were immaterial to his master, the United States, in the former suit. The trial court held that privity existed between the United States Government and Shelley. We do not agree for the reasons appearing herein. (emphasis added). Id. at 712.
The Court then discussed various cases dealing with privity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, and concluded by stating:
It is one of the proud boasts of the Anglo- American legal tradition that every man is entitled to his day in court, that is, a trial court, and Shelley has not had that day to assert his claim for damages. He was certainly not a party to the litigation in the federal court; he had no right to cross-examine witnesses; no control over the litigation; he had no right to appeal the finding of his neglige
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|