Source: http://www.ahcuah.com/fflib/cases/hicks.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:21:44+00:00

Document:
Alfred J. Weisbrod Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Alfred J. Weisbrod, for appellees.
 There being the general requisite of an identity of persons and parties, or their privies, within the prior proceeding in order for the judgment or decree to operate as an estoppel, strangers to such a judgment or decree will not be affected thereby. Woodward v. Moore (1862), 13 Ohio St. 136, 143; State, ex rel. Atty. Gen., v. Cincinnati Gas - Light & Coke Co. (1868), 18 Ohio St. 262, 299; Frank v. Jenkins Bro. & Chipman (1872), 22 Ohio St. 597, paragraph four of the syllabus; Burt v. Wilcox Silver Plate Co. (1884), 41 Ohio St. 204, 205. For all practical purposes, the mutuality rule is coextensive with the requirement that the plea of res judicata is available only to a party to the judgment and to his privies. See, generally, Annotation, 31 A.L.R. 3d 1044.
 In Reardon, the court, arguing against permitting the offensive use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a nonmutuality situation, stated that rejecting mutuality exposes a defendant who is subject to multiple claims to considerable detriment; that one disadvantage is that he must evaluate the risk of the first case with an eye to those to come, including cases of adversaries not yet known; and that another disadvantage may be illustrated by the example of an accident involving a bus, train, or airplane in which a number of passengers are injured. In elaboration of the last argument it was said that if a judgment against the defendant in the first action can be used by all other claimants, the defendant must put up the most vigorous defense even when the first action presents a minor claim. Annotation, 31 A.L.R. 3d, supra, at 1055-1056. See, also, IB Moore's Federal Practice, Paragraph 0.412.
 The use of "offensive collateral estoppel" in nonmutuality cases in federal courts was sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), 439 U.S. 322. *fn12 However, even the court in Parklane pointed out that a party may not invoke collateral estoppel without showing that precisely the same issue was litigated in the prior action. White v. World Finance of Meridian, Inc. (C.A. 5, 1981), 653 F. 2d 147: See, generally, 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and ProceduresSection 4417 (1981). The burden of pleading and proving the identity of issues rests on the party asserting the collateral estoppel. Hernandez v. Los Angeles (C.A. 9, 1980), 624 F. 2d 935. Also, Parklane left undisturbed the requisite of privity, i.e., that collateral estoppel can only be applied against parties who have had a prior "full and fair" opportunity to litigate their claims. C. A. Hardy v. Johns - Manville Sales Corp. (C.A. 5, 1982), 681 F. 2d 334, 338.
 "In our opinion, the existing Ohio requirement that there be an identity of parties or their privies is founded upon the sound principle that all persons are entitled to their day in court. The doctrine of res judicata is a necessarsjudicial development involving considerations of finality and multiplicity, but it should not be permitted to encroach upon fundamental and imperative rights. It is our conclusion that the rule advocated by the appellant could create grave problems in establishing the adequacy of non-party's representation in the prior suit and that the case at bar is not one which should result in a departure from present Ohio law."
 The court of appeals here, and the appellees, point out that this court has recently decided the case of Hicks v. De La Cruz (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 71 [6 O.O.3d 274], which it is claimed varies from the general rule as previously followed regarding the necessity of mutuality of estoppel . It is argued by the appellees that Hicks enunciates a new rule for Ohio, abandoning the mutuality rule. In review of the particular facts surrounding the determination in Hicks, and all of the pronouncements on the subject prior to and subsequent to that case, we conclude that this court has not, within the limited ruling of Hicks, abandoned the mutuality rule, but has only shown that it is willing to relax the rule where justice would reasonably require it.
 In Hicks, this court did indeed decide that case within the context of the Restatement of Judgments 2d, by referring in the opinion, at page 74, ts"Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (Tent. Draft No. 4 ), Section 68, at page 1, and (Tent. Draft No. 2 ), Section 88, at pages 89-90.11 However, we conclude that such determination related only to the narrow issue of ownership and control of the hospital, which determination would show the status of the hospital for purposes of the application of sovereign immunity. Such issue had specifically been addressed by this court in the prior cause. The prior determination was not one involving the liability of the city in its operation of the hospital, but one of ownership and control, and, as to that issue, there could be little question that the city previously had its day in court. The city of Cincinnati would yet have its day in court on the issue of liability under the facts to be presented in the latter proceeding.
 Also, it is apparent that this court has not abandoned the principle of mutuality by a review of cases that have been decided since Hicks. The viability of the general rule of the identity or mutuality of parties requirement is supported by a number of recent cases in which the issue was central to the decisions reached by this court. See Schomaeker v. First Natl. Bank (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 304, 313 [20 O.O.3d 285]; Johnson v. Norman (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 186, 190 [20 O.O.3d 196]; State, ex rel. Westchester, v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 44 [15 O.O.3d 53]; Trautwein v. Sorgenfrei (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 493 [12 O.O.3d 403]; and Werlin Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 76, 81 [7 O.O.3d 152].
 The main legal thread which runs throughout the determination of thsapplicability of res judicata, inclusive of the adjunct principle of collateral estoppel, is the necessity of a fair opportunity to fully litigate and to be "heard" in the due process sense. Accordingly, an absolute due process prerequisite to the application of collateral estoppel is that the party asserting the preclusion must prove that the identical issue was actually litigated, directly determined, and essential to the judgment in the prior action. Norwood v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St. 299 [27 O.O. 240]; First Natl Bank v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. (1964), 176 Ohio St. 395 [27 O.O.2d 360]; Ohio Finance Co. v. McReynolds (1927), 27 Ohio App. 42. Collaterally estopping a party from relitigating an issue previously decided against it violates due process where it could not be foreseen that the issue would subsequently be utilized collaterally, and where the party had little knowledge or incentive to litigate fully and vigorously in the first action due to the procedural and/or factual circumstances presented therein. This latter point was recognized in State, ex rel. Westchester, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus, in which this court held that where there has been a change in the facts since a prior decision, which either raises a new material issue, or which would have been relevant to the resolution of a material issue involved in the earlier action, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of collateral estoppel will bar litigation of that issue in a later action.
 Additionally, even though we might accept the principle of the offensive use of nonmutual preclusion as applied to product design cases, applying the standards underlying Parklane, supra, and as set forth in Restatement of Judgments 2d, Section 27, Comment c, the appellees still could not prevail. A reading of all that is before this court, concerning the prior case of Harrison v. McDonough, supra, i.e., the federal trial court's opinion and order, it may be determined that there were two totally separate accidents, with two different models of a riding lawnmower manufactured in different years by appellant manufacturer; there were different operators of the equipment with perhaps totally different mechanical capabilities; different terrain and weather conditions; also, the same rules of law were not applicable in both states - Florida had enacted a comparative negligence statute at the time of the accident in that case, while Ohio still had the rule of contributory negligence at that time; and, what is critically important to the appellant, thsdiffering trial techniques and appellate determinations that would have been made by legal counsel in the prior case if it had been known that the judgment would have been utilized in subsequent cases to estop a defense on the question of liability. Without the necessity of further analysis of the differences in this case and Harrison, we conclude that the appellees would not be reasonably able to show the requisite "identity of issues" for the application of nonmutual collateral estoppel.
 *fn1 Subsequently, the Goodson family obtained a part interest in the mower.
 *fn2 Among other safety precautions, the operator's manual included warnings not to give rides while mowing nor to allow individuals near the mower while operating it.
 *fn3 The reported decision is that of the federal district court denying a motion for a judgment n.o.v.
 *fn5 See, e.g., Norwood v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St. 299 [27 O.O. 240]; State, ex rel. Ohio Water Service Co., v. Mahoning Valley Sanitary Dist. (1959), 169 Ohio St. 31 [8 O.O.2d 1]; Grant v. Ramsey (1858), 7 Ohio St. 157; Conold v. Stern (1941), 138 Ohio St. 352 [20 O.O. 449]; Schimke v. Earley (1962), 173 Ohio St. 521 [20 O.O.2d 143]; Hixson v. Ogg (1895), 53 Ohio St. 361; Massillon Sav. & Loan Co. v. Imperial Finance Co. (1926), 114 Ohio St. 523.
 *fn6 See Schram v. Cincinnati (1922), 105 Ohio St. 324; Massillon Sav. & Loan Co. v. Imperial Finance Co., supra; Shoemaker v. Cincinnati (1903), 68 Ohio St. 603; Conold v. Stern, supra; Schimke v. Earley, supra.
 *fn7 See, e.g., B. R. De Witt, Inc. v. Hall (1967), 19 N.Y. 2d 141, 225 N.E. 2d 195; Hossler v. Barry (Me. 1979), 403 A. 2d 762; Pat Perusse Realty Co. v. Lingo (1968), 249 Md. 33, 238 A. 2d 100; Oates v. Safeco Ins. Co. (Mo. 1979), 583 S.W. 2d 713; Peterson v. Nebraska Natural Gas Co. (1979), 204 Neb. 136, 281 N.W. 2d 525; Bahler v. Fletcher (1970), 257 Ore. 1, 474 P. 2d 329; In re Estate of Ellis (1975), 460 Pa. 281, 333 A. 2d 728; Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), 439 U.S. 322.
 *fn8 See, e.g., Momeau v. Stark Enterpises, Ltd. (1975), 56 Haw. 420, 539 P. 2d 472; Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Pollution Control Bd. (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 1, 398 N.P.. 2d 9; Goolsby v. Derby (Iowa 1971) 189 N.W. 2d 909; Home owners Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Northwestern F. & M. Ins. Co. (1968), 354 Mass. 448, 238 N.E. 2d 55.
 *fn9 See, e.g., Spettigue v. Mahoney (1968), 8 Ariz. App. 281, 445 P. 2d 557; Adamson v. Hill (1969), 202 Kan. 482, 449 P. 2d 536; Norfolk & W Ry. Co. v. Bailey Lumber Co. (1980), 221 Va. 638, 272 S.E. 2d 217; Daigneau v. National Cash Register (Fla. App. 1971), 247 So. 2d 465.
 *fn10 Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, 7 Works of Jeremy Bentham 171 (Bowring Ed. 1843); Currie, Mutuality of Collateral Estoppel: Limits of the Bernhard Doctrine, 9 Stan. L. Rev. 281; Currie, The Tempest Brews, 53 Cal. L. Rev. 25 (1965).
 *fn11 1B Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed.), 1805-1806, Paragraph 0.412(l]; Moore and Currie, Mutuality and Conclusiveness of Judgments, 35 Tulane L. Rev. 301 (1961); Greenebaum, In Defense of the Doctrine of Mutuality of Estoppel, 45 Ind. L. J. 1 (1969); Note, Impacts of Defensive and offensive Assertion of Collateral Estoppel by a Nonparty, 35 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1010 (1967).
 *fn12 In Parklane, the stockholders of the company sought to use a determination by the district court in auction brought by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading. The stockholders contended that the defendant corporation was collaterally estopped from relitigating issues resolved against it in the SEC suit.
 In Parklane, while noting that "the problem of unfairness [to a defendant] is particularly acute in cases of offensive estoppel," and admitting that "offensive use of collateral estoppel does not promote judicial economy in the same manner as defensive use does," the court nonetheless decided to endorse an approach that would not prevent federal courts from applying offensive collateral estoppel, unless considerations demonstrating unfairness to a defendant are shown or such application is otherwise improper under the circumstances. 439 U.S., at 329-331. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, set forth many of the justifications and reasons previously discussed in Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942), 19 Cal. 2d 807, 122 P. 2d 892, the landmark decision that discarded mutuality and allowed defensive collateral estoppel, as well as those discussed in Blonder - Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), 402 U.S. 313, where the Supreme Court had approved the abandonment of mutuality in a defensive context.
 "It is our determination that appellees may not now relitigate the issue of ownership and control of this hospital, all questions pertaining thereto having been properly before this court in Sears, supra. The pertinent appellees herein were represented parties or were in actual privity with represented parties in Sears and were accorded a full and fair day in court in that proceeding."
 "It is clear that in Sears, the issue of the ownership and before the court and that it was an control of this hospital was issue which was directly confronted by the city of Cincinnati. All of the facts noted by the lower courts in the instant case to substantiate their conclusions that the state, rather than Cincinnati, owned and controlled the hospital were the same facts which existed at the time of Sears. In short, this court is now being asked to relitigate the issue of ownership and control of the hospital in the face of Cincinnati's repeated assertions in Sears that it owned, operated and controlled the hospital.
 "The dangers of issue preclusion are as apparent as its virtues. The central danger lies in the simple but devastating fact that the first litigated determination of an issue may be wrong. The risk of error runs far beyond the proposition that most matters in civil litigation are determined according to the preponderance of the evidence. The decisional process itself is not fully rational, at least if rationality is defined in terms of the formally stated substantive rules. Considerations of sympathy, prejudice, distaste for the substantive rules, and even ignorance or incapacity may control the outcome. Trial tactics are consciously adapted to these concerns, but efforts to reduce the irrationality may fail or backfire and efforts to exploit it may succeed." 18 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 142, Section 4416.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.