HECTOR ALVAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
NESTOR SALESCO, INC., D/B/A ACE TOOL COMPANY, D/B/A NESCO TOOLS COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff sued a tool manufacturer after being blinded while using a Snap-On wrench to work on the manufacturer's sander. After losing against the wrench maker, plaintiff sued the sander manufacturer separately. The trial court dismissed the second suit as splitting causes of action, but the appellate court reversed, holding the anti-splitting rule does not apply to claims against different defendants.
The rule against splitting causes of action does not apply where claims involve different defendants. Although the rule mandates that all damages from a single wrongful act must be claimed in one action, it is inapplicable to successive claims brought against different parties.
[1] The rule against splitting causes of action requires that all relief arising out of a single transaction or event be sought and recovered in one action.
[2] The rule against splitting causes of action does not apply where the claims involve different defendants.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the rule against splitting causes of action requires that all relief arising out of a single transaction or event be sought, and recovered, in one action”
States the general rule against splitting causes of action that the trial court applied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHector Alvarez was blinded in one eye while using a Snap-On wrench to loosen a nut on a sander manufactured by Nestor Salesco, Inc. Alvarez first sued…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Against Splitting Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Plaintiff appellant was blinded in one eye while using a Snap-On wrench to loosen a nut on a sander manufactured by appellee Nestor. Plaintiff first sued Snap-On Tools, alleging a defective wrench, which resulted in a defense verdict and an affirmance on appeal. Plaintiff then brought this separate law suit against appellee Nestor, alleging that a defect in the sander caused his injury. The trial court concluded that the claim against Nestor was barred by the rule against splitting causes of action. We reverse.
In Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So. 2d 432, 433 (1942), our supreme court explained the rule against splitting a cause of action as follows:
We recognize the rule against the splitting of causes of action and that as a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all damages sustained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not at all. As is stated in 1 Am.Jur. 481, “the rule is found upon the plainest and most substantial justice—namely, that litigation should have an end and that no person should be unnecessarily harassed with a multiplicity of suits.”
The trial court was apparently persuaded by general statements in decisions involving this principle, such as the one made by this court in Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which was “[t]he rule against splitting causes of action requires that all relief arising out of a single transaction or event be sought, and recovered, in one action,” citing Gaynon. The rule, however, does not apply where the claims involve different defendants.
In Greenstein v. Greenbrook Ltd., 443 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court did apply the rule against splitting causes of action when it affirmed the dismissal of a second law suit in regard to defendants who had been previously sued, but reversed the dismissal as to defendants who had not been joined in the first case. As the third district noted in Greenstein, the rule against splitting causes of action is part of the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at 297. While it can bar successive claims against the same parties, it is inapplicable to a subsequent claim brought against a different party. See also Builders Glass & Metal v. M.E.T. Constr., Inc., 528 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Reversed.
PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…splitting causes of action. For the following reasons, we disagree with this conclusion. The rule against splitting causes of action is “an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Froman, 753 So. 2d at 116 (citing Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). The rule provides that: “[A]s a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all .damages sus [*1211] tained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not at all.”…1 / 2
-
Froman v. Kirland, 753 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…See id., 10 So. 2d at 433. However, the claim of splitting the cause was not made until after judgment had been obtained. The doctrine of splitting causes of action is an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata. See Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). One of the requirements for res judicata to apply is that the claim must have been adjudicated on the merits. See ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). A voluntary dismissal without prejudice will not…
-
Tucker v. John Galt Ins. Agency Corp., 743 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…sing out of a single incident are costly to litigants and an inefficient use of judicial resources; and (3) multiple lawsuits cause substantial delay in the final resolution of disputes. Id. (citations omitted); see Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Gaynon v. Startum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So. 2d 432, 433 (1942)).3 The rule should not be mindlessly and inflexibly applied without regard to the reasons for its application, when to do so would defeat the ends of justic…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1942)
- Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 443 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Quinn v. Cusanelli, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Builders Glass & Metal, Inc. v. M.E.T. Constr., Inc., 528 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)