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.
18. Is the court likely to grant the man's motion for partial summary judgment?
Six months later, a man, who also had been involved in the car accident and suffered a serious injury, filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the trucker in the federal court in State B to recover for his injuries. The man filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the prior suit had already determined the trucker's negligence, and thus his liability.
A driver, a citizen of State A, filed a lawsuit against a trucker, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State B. The driver sought compensation for damages to his automobile incurred in a car accident that took place in State B. A jury found, pursuant to a special verdict, that the trucker had been speeding and ran a red light and therefore awarded the driver $95,000.
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, a party not bound by an earlier judgment (because this party was not a party to the earlier lawsuit) could not use that judgment to bind his adversary who had been a party to the former lawsuit. This rule was known as the doctrine of mutuality.
However, most courts no longer recognize the general principle of mutuality. It is no longer the general rule that a non-party to the first lawsuit cannot benefit from a judgment made against his adversary in that prior lawsuit. In Parklane Hoisery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979), the Supreme Court allowed offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, meaning a party not present in the first lawsuit who is seeking to bind their adversary to a final judgment on an issue from an earlier case against a party who was present in the earlier case.
In Parklane, the Court held that a case-by-case analysis was necessary to determine whether offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is available. The factors for this analysis are:
1. alignment in the first suit: whether the party sought to be bound (the defendant in the second suit) was a plaintiff or defendant in the first suit;
2. incentive to litigate: whether the person to be estopped had a reasonable incentive to litigate the issue fully in the first suit;
3. discouraging breakaway suits: whether the party seeking to use offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel in the second action could have been joined in the first action and «sat out» that first action in order to derive a tactical advantage;
4. multiple plaintiff anomaly: if numerous potential plaintiffs are waiting in the wings, a court would be less likely to permit offensive estoppel;
5. whether there are procedural opportunities available to a party in the second action that were not present in the first, which might make a difference in the outcome;
6. whether the issue is one of law or fact; AND
7. whether the defendant in the second action is the government (in which case the offensive non-mutual use of collateral estoppel will hardly ever be allowed).
Courts will balance these factors on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a party who is not present in the first lawsuit will be permitted to use offensive non-mutual estoppel to bind their opponent to an earlier final judgment on a specific issue.
B is correct. This answer is the best choice because there is not enough information in the facts to determine that the man will be able to bind the trucker to the judgment in the earlier lawsuit between the driver and the trucker.
However, just because there is not enough information to definitively know whether or not the man will be able to use non-mutual offensive estoppel does not mean a court would find the man cannot bind the trucker. It is unlikely to grant the motion until it can conduct the factor analysis laid out in Parklane to determine if the man will be able to bind the trucker to the earlier judgment on the issue of the trucker's negligence in the suit between the driver and the trucker.
A is incorrect. This question does not contain enough facts to conclude that non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel is NOT available to the man. A Parklane analysis is necessary to determine whether non-mutual collateral estoppel applies. The man's motion for partial summary judgment should be denied, but not because he may NOT use non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel, but because the court must first conduct this factor analysis.
C is incorrect. Claim preclusion requires the parties to be the same in the original action and the subsequent suit. As such, claim preclusion will not be the basis for a finding of negligence here because the man was not a party to the previous lawsuit.
D is incorrect. As stated above, there is not enough information in this fact pattern to determine whether the non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel will definitely apply or not. Just like the motion should not be denied because this doctrine does NOT apply, nor can the court find, on these facts, that it DOES apply to grant partial summary judgment in favor of the man.