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.
19. Is the doctor likely to be precluded from litigating any issues or claims against the stockbroker?
A politician from State B filed a lawsuit against a stockbroker from State A, in state court in State A. The politician sought over $75,000 as compensation for damages incurred in a car accident. The jury found, pursuant to a special verdict, that the stockbroker had not been negligent and awarded no damages to the politician. Six months later, a doctor, who had also been involved in the car accident in another vehicle, filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the stockbroker in State A federal court.
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
B is correct. The doctor was not a party in the first lawsuit or in privity with any of the parties, and no other exception applies. Thus, the doctor will not be precluded from bringing a lawsuit against the stockbroker, regardless of what was decided in the first lawsuit between the politician and the stockbroker.
A is incorrect. As explained above, because the doctor had no involvement with the first case between the stockbroker and politician, and because no exception applies that would allow the stockbroker to assert preclusion, the doctor will not be precluded from arguing the stockbroker was negligent.
C is incorrect. For an issue to be subject to issue preclusion, the issue must be the same as the one that was fully and fairly litigated in the first action. The first court must have decided the issue, and the first court's decision must have been necessary to the outcome of the first suit. Only parties who were parties or in privity with the parties in the first action will be precluded from relitigating an issue unless an exception applies. In this fact pattern, no exception applies, and the doctor will not be precluded from relitigating the issue of the stockbroker's negligence.
D is incorrect. Claim preclusion prevents a claim from being relitigated when it has already been fully heard in a previous case. As explained above, the doctor will not have her lawsuit dismissed on the basis of claim preclusion because she was not a party to or in privity with the parties of the prior lawsuit between the stockbroker and the politician.