Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
14. Will the travel company's finding of non-liability in the student's case apply in the teacher's lawsuit?
A teacher had been riding on the same bus as the student and thereafter brought a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the travel company in State B federal court for injuries.
A student was riding on a bus owned and operated by a travel company when the bus collided with a truck in State B, thereby injuring the student. The student then brought a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the travel company in state court in State A. The court found the travel company not negligent and dismissed the student's lawsuit.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Traditionally, neither defensive nor offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel may be used against a party unless that party (or their privy) had their day in court on that issue in the prior litigation. Due process prohibits the exercise of collateral estoppel against a person who was not a party or a privy to the prior litigation because they never had a prior opportunity to be heard on the issue.
The requirement for mutuality of parties has been relaxed, however, so long as the other elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, giving rise to the application of non-mutual collateral estoppel. Non-mutual collateral estoppel was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in some cases. In Parklane Hoisery Co. v. Shore, the Court held that a case-by-case analysis was necessary to determine whether non-mutual collateral estoppel is available. 439 U.S. 322 (1979).
A is correct. Non-mutual collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) is the exercise of collateral estoppel by a person who was not a party to the prior litigation. However, non-mutual collateral estoppel cannot be used against a party unless that party (or their privy) had their day in court on that issue in the prior litigation.
In this case, the teacher was not a party in the first lawsuit. The travel company may not, therefore, use defensive collateral estoppel to prevent any of the same issues tried in the first case from being relitigated in this new lawsuit. The use of defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel here would be prohibited because it would affect the due process rights of the teacher to have his case litigated.
B is incorrect. As explained above, non-mutual collateral estoppel is the exercise of collateral estoppel by a person who was not a party to the prior litigation. Traditionally, the preclusive effect of collateral estoppel applied only if the parties in the second case were the same as, or in privity with, the parties in the first case. That requirement for mutuality of parties has been relaxed, however, so long as the other elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, giving rise to the application of non-mutual collateral estoppel. Non-mutual collateral estoppel was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in some cases. In Parklane Hoisery Co. v. Shore, the Court held that a case-by-case analysis was necessary to determine whether non-mutual collateral estoppel is available.
C is incorrect. When an issue or claim that was litigated in one action reappears in a subsequent lawsuit, as a general rule, only the persons who were parties or privies with the parties in the first lawsuit will be precluded from relitigating the issue or claim. As explained above, due process will not allow the travel company's use of defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, because the teacher was not a party or in privity with any of the parties in the first lawsuit, which would be an abrogation of his due process rights to have his day in court.
D is incorrect. Choice of law is not implicated in this question's fact pattern. State courts are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1) to give full effect to the judgment of courts in other states. Federal courts are required to do the same under the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738). If the teacher had been a party or in privity with a party in the prior lawsuit, the travel company would have been able to assert defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, because State B's federal court would have to uphold State A's state court's judgment.