Back To CourseCivics Study Guide
18 chapters | 146 lessons
Cindy was on her way home from a Christmas party, and fellow party goer Ted smashed into Cindy's car injuring her and sending her to the hospital. Ted's had three times the limit of a blood alcohol level. Ted sued the catering company for over-serving him and lost ruling that there was insufficient evidence that they served him too much.
Ted had no money, and had let his insurance lapse, so Cindy then sued the homeowners and the catering company instead for serving Ted too much alcohol. At their first hearing, the judge threw out the case saying the issue of the catering company serving too much alcohol to ted had already been decided. Is that right? How can Cindy get justice for her injuries?
In the American judicial system, there is a principle that once a legal issue has been decided, then it's final. The simplest form of this is called res judicata which is Latin and means ''previously judged''. This prevents someone from losing a trial and then just refiling to have another crack at it.
For res judicata to be a defense, it has to be the same set of occurrences as in the first case, the same parties, and the case must have proceeded to a final judgment. For example, Harry's tree smashed Charlie's shed, and at trial, Harry's insurance lawyer convinced the judge it was an act of God, thus Harry wasn't negligent and Charlie got nothing. At this point, Charlie can't just refile and sue Harry all over again just because he didn't like the judgment.
The same principle applies to collateral estoppel which is a doctrine that prevents relitigation of the same legal issue. Unlike res judicata, it doesn't have to be the same parties nor does have to involve the same claim. Instead, the focus in on a particular issue that has been decided.
For example, Kent bought a rare baseball card in an online auction. He paid $5k to Barry, but when Kent got the card and had it appraised, his appraiser said it was a forgery. Kent sued Barry, but the court said there wasn't enough evidence to prove it was a forgery. Barry decided to buy the card back anyway to keep his reputation. He then sued the collector who originally sold him the card, saying it was a forgery. The collector could claim collateral estoppel saying that a court had already ruled that the card was not a forgery.
Why have this rule? Otherwise there would be no end to lawsuits over an issue. One court could say it's a forgery and another could say it wasn't. To successfully claim collateral estoppel, the following must apply:
Early on, the doctrine only applied if there was mutuality which means both parties had been in the first lawsuit. Today, however, one can claim collateral estoppel even if the parties are not the same. This is called non-mutual collateral estoppel, and it means that if at least one party was part of the previous ruling, then it may apply. Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel happens when a new plaintiff claims it to keep a defendant from getting out of a previous ruling on the same issue.
For example, remember that the judge ruled that Harry's tree falling was an act of God and thus not Charlie's fault? If Charlie's other neighbor, Zeek, had left his motorcycle in Charlie's yard which was smashed by the tree, and Charlie had insurance for acts of God coverage for any damage done on his own property, Zeek could use offensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel to keep the insurance company from claiming that the tree falling wasn't an act of God because the court already said it was.
Defensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel occurs when a defendant uses it to prevent a new plaintiff (not part of the previous suit) from asserting an issue that has already been decided. For example, remember the card that the judge ruled wasn't a forgery? If Barry sued the original collector for the forgery, the collector could claim non-mutual, collateral estoppel because the judge already ruled it wasn't a forgery.
Remember, in all cases, collateral estoppel is designed from someone getting a judge to rule differently than a previous valid ruling just to help them in the present case. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
So what about Cindy? Applying what we now know about collateral estoppel, was the judge right to throw out her claim against the homeowner? Lets run though the requirements. The issue was identical as it was whether the catering company over-served Ted. It was fully litigated, and the court issued a ruling which was integral to the outcome of the first trial. So it would be collateral estoppel.
What about the fact the homeowner wasn't part of the first suit? This would be non-mutual as the homeowner wasn't part of the first suit. It would be defensive as the homeowners are using it to defend themselves. So unfortunately for Cindy, she's out of luck.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents the courts from relitigating an issue that a court had already decided. This is smiliar to the doctrine of res judicata which prevents a full trial that comes from the same set of occurrences which has already been decided by a court. To claim collateral estoppel, the following need apply:
There are two types of estoppel, mutual which involves the exact same parties, and non-mutual which only included one party that was previously part of the prior case. Offensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel happens when a new plaintiff uses it to keep a defendant from getting out of a previous ruling on the same issue. Defensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel occurs when a defendant uses it to prevent a plaintiff (who was not part of the previous suit) from asserting an issue that has already been decided.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Did you know… We have over 95 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 2,000 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.
To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page
Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.
Back To CourseCivics Study Guide
18 chapters | 146 lessons