WILLIAM FULLER, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Products Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review, which was entered in favor of the defendant General Motors Corporation based on a jury verdict after trial below, is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) “[collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment, is a judicial doctrine which in general terms prevents identical parties from relitigating issues that have previously been decided between them,” and has, as one of its essential elements, the requirement that “[t]he parties ... be identical.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla.1978); (b) the judicial doctrine of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment is totally inapplicable to this case because the defendant General Motors Corporation was not a party to the prior final summary judgment entered in favor of the co-defendant herein, see Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1978), and was in no sense bound thereby; and (c) the trial court was, accordingly, correct in allowing the defendant General Motors Corporation to litigate at trial below the issue of the alleged defective brakes in this products liability action.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delbert Hoskins and Martha Hoskins v. Midland Ins. Co. a/s/o Resolute Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…urt’s finding that Resolute was at least partially at fault for its loss, we hold that Resolute is collaterally estopped to deny its fault in its action for indemnification. Appellee points to our recent decisions in Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 394 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Robinson, 389 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), in support of its proposition that it may not be collaterally estopped by the Iowa judgment, because appellant was not a party to the ac…
-
Demoya v. Lorenzo, 468 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ssue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So. 2d 843, 845 (Fla.1984); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 394 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Coplan Pipe & Supply Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 362 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Because neither DeMoya nor his privies were parties in Nunziato, [*360] they are not barred by collateral estoppel from maintaining the pres…
-
W. Point Constr. Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md., 515 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ction. Trucking Employees of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1984); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 394 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this case, the criteria are clearly satisfied. The parties and issues are identical to those in the Georgia proceedings. The matters alleged in West Point’s complaint in the present action were conclusively determined in the…
Authorities Cited
- Vallen James Trumps v. State, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1977)
- Fuller v. Gen. Motors Corp., 353 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)