ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, MEMORIAL PARK, INC., AND EDWARD BECKHANS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLARA BARTLETT, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JULIAN CLARENCE BARTLETT, DECEASED, 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.
In this wrongful death case, the trial court granted summary judgment against the appellants based on estoppel by judgment, holding that a prior negligence judgment against the defendants in a separate action by another injured party conclusively established the defendants' negligence toward the decedent. The appellate court reversed, holding that estoppel by judgment does not apply because the parties in the two actions were not identical.
The trial court erred in applying estoppel by judgment. Estoppel by judgment requires identity of parties between the prior judgment and the subsequent action. Here, the prior negligence issue was decided between the appellants and Nadeau, not between the appellants and the decedent Bartlett's administratrix, so the essential element of party identity was lacking.
[1] Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar a claim when the party asserting them was not an adversary to the party against whom they are asserted in the prior litiga…
[2] A plaintiff is not required to assert a claim against a third-party defendant joined by the original defendant in the original action.
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“Estoppel by judgment, simply stated, is a principle of law which recognizes within the concept of res judicata that once an identical, relevant issue as between the same parties has been decided by a prior valid judgment that issue can never again be retried between them.”
Establishes the definition and essential requirements of estoppel by judgment doctrine
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulian Clarence Bartlett and Nadeau were riding in the bed of a truck owned by Memorial Park, Inc. and driven by Edward Beckhans. An accident occurred…
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 Identity Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was rendered against appellants, defendants below, under the doctrine of estoppel by judgment. This interlocutory appeal ensued. We reverse.
Appellee’s decedent, Julian Clarence Bartlett, and one Nadeau were riding on the bed of a truck owned by appellant-Memorial Park, Inc. and driven by appellant Beckhans. An accident occurred in which Bartlett was killed and Nadeau seriously injured. Subsequently, Nadeau brought a negligence action against Memorial Park and Beckhans and joined appellant Zurich Insurance Company, Memorial’s carrier. Judgment was rendered in favor of Nadeau and he was awarded substantial damages.
This wrongful death action arising out of the same accident was thereafter filed on behalf of the decedent Bartlett. Plaintiff/appellee moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability contending that the negligence of appellant Beckhans had been conclusively determined in the prior action. The trial court granted the motion holding:
“WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the partial summary judgment requested by plaintiff is granted to the effect that Edward Beckhans negligently operated the truck in which plaintiff’s decedent was riding contributing to his death.” The trial court misperceived the doctrine of estoppel by judgment.
Estoppel by judgment, simply stated, is a principle of law which recognizes within the concept of res judicata that once an identical, relevant issue as between the same parties has been decided by a prior valid judgment that issue can never again be retried between them. Here, the previously decided issue sought to be relied upon was the negligence of the driver Beckhans in the subject accident. That issue, however, was only decided as between appellants and Nadeau — not as between appellants and the decedent Bartlett’s adminis-tratrix. The identity of parties, therefore, essential to application of the doctrine of estoppel by judgment, was not present here. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Cox, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1976).
In view whereof the order appealed from should be and it is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
BOARDMAN, C. J., GRIMES, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Robinson, 389 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…gment3 that the issue which is sought to be foreclosed by the result of earlier litigation has been decided in an action “between” the parties in the later case. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla.1977); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 352 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1978). This means, as the court said in Rader v. Otis Elevator Co., 327 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1976), that “estoppel must be predicated on a j…
-
Keesee v. Est. OF Richard L. Neely, 498 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…igation. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company v. Cox, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1976). The present matter lacks the necessary identity of parties to permit applica [*1028] tion of the doctrine of estoppel by judgment. Zurich Insurance Company v. Bartlett, 352 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Nevertheless, the motion to dismiss Keesee’s petition for the refund of the tax she paid was correctly decided. The ambiguity in the will supports the trial court’s reliance upon section 733.817(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). W…
-
Horan v. Horan, 464 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ld have precluded the husband from relitigating the same claim. See generally, Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. v. Cox, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1976); City of Hialeah Gardens v. Prieto, 353 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Zurich Insurance Co. v. Bartlett, 352 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). However, estoppel by judgment is inapplicable in this ease because of the inconclusiveness of the “contempt judgment.” It expressly left the husband’s claim unresolved, anticipating that it would be considered in the hearing on t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. COX, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1976)