ROBERT RACINO, PETITIONER,
v.
ELMER SAXON, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida appellate court held that a driver can assert res judicata as a defense when sued for personal injuries by a plaintiff who previously litigated against the vehicle's owner and chose not to include the driver as a defendant. The court granted certiorari to review and quash the trial court's order striking the res judicata defense.
Yes. In motor vehicle collision cases, if a plaintiff sues a driver and loses on the merits, the owner may raise this as a defense in a subsequent action; conversely, if a plaintiff sues the owner, the driver may raise a judgment as a defense to a later suit. No distinction applies based on whether a party proceeds through a counterclaim rather than an original action. Saxon's failure to include Racino as a defendant in the earlier action against Alterman bars Saxon's present claim against Racino through res judicata.
“if a plaintiff sues a driver and loses on the merits, the owner may raise this in defense to a subsequent action against him. So too, if a plaintiff sues the owner and loses, the driver may raise this in defense to a later suit against him.”
Establishes the core res judicata rule applicable in motor vehicle collision cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA motor vehicle collision occurred between a truck owned by Alterman Transport Lines (driven by petitioner Racino) and a Volkswagen (driven by respond…
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 Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, plaintiff below, seeks certiora-ri to review a trial court’s order striking *275his defense of res judicata to a counterclaim filed by respondent, defendant below.
The myriad of events precipitating this cause commenced with a motor vehicle collision between a truck and Volkswagen. Petitioner was driving the truck owned by Alterman Transport Lines. Respondent was operating the Volkswagen.
Respondent first became plaintiff in a separate suit for property damages and personal injuries against both Alterman and petitioner. They both counterclaimed. Respondent and petitioner then voluntarily dismissed their claims against each other without prejudice. Trial resulted in a jury verdict and judgment thereon for Alterman on respondent’s claim and for respondent on Alterman’s counterclaim.
The action sub judice was then separately filed with petitioner suing respondent for personal injuries. When respondent counterclaimed for his own injuries and damages the petitioner raised the defense of res judicata. Upon motion the court struck the defense and this petition for writ of certiorari followed.
In cases involving motor vehicle collisions and liability arising therefrom, we construe the rule to be that if a plaintiff sues a driver and loses on the merits, the owner may raise this in defense to a subsequent action against him. So too, if a plaintiff sues the owner and loses, the driver may raise this in defense to a later suit against him.1 No distinction is to be placed on the fact a party proceeds through a counterclaim rather than by an original action.
The respondent exercised his opportunity to fully litigate his issues with the owner of the truck and chose not to include the driver as a defendant. This places him squarely within the above rule when the driver now pursues his independent claim seeking recovery.2
The respondent does not question the use of certiorari for review of this cause, however we find it compatible with the principles enunciated for its purpose.3
For the foregoing reasons certiorari is granted and the order of the trial court striking the defense of res judicata is quashed with directions to reinstate the same.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hinton v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. & Steve Dellinger, 317 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…essence, the same principles apply in both situations. The question is whether the same result obtains when the first suit is against the master and the second is against the servant. The point was considered in Racino v. Saxon, Fla.App.4th, 1969, 222 So. 2d 274, in which the court stated: “In cases involving motor vehicle collisions and liability arising therefrom, we construe the rule to be that if a plaintiff sues a driver and loses on the merits, the owner may raise this in defense to a subsequent acti…
-
Costa v. A-1 Stationers, Inc., 326 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See RCP 1.420(b) and Rocino v. Saxon, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 274.…
-
Zuckerman v. Redland Constr. Co., 534 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1977); Hinton v. Iowa Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 317 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1976); Phillips v. Hall, 297 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Racino v. Saxon, 222 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Cf. Van Sickle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.1985).…
Authorities Cited
- Warren D. Hinchee et ux. v. Charles E. Fisher et ux., 93 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1957)
- HAY v. Hildreth, 125 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- In the name of the State of Fla. upon the relation of Jack E. Hammock v. Kennedy, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Thoman v. Timmothy Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)