Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/411/88/424385/
Timestamp: 2019-11-22 05:26:57
Document Index: 126424092

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 5', '§ 322', '§ 5', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 311', '§ 5', '§ 322', '§ 19', '§ 1601', '§ 1', '§ 1602', '§ 601', '§ 320', '§ 93', '§ 1601', '§ 320']

Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of John R. Lynch, Also Known As John Roberts Lynch, Deceased (plaintiff), Andjohn Landis Harris and Sarah B. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas W. Smith, Deceased (party Plaintiffs), v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and George M. Patterson, Administrator of the Estate of Donald Cionci, Deceased,lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (defendant), Appellant, 411 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1969 › Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of John R. Lynch, Also Know...
Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Company, Administrator of the Estate of John R. Lynch, Also Known As John Roberts Lynch, Deceased (plaintiff), Andjohn Landis Harris and Sarah B. Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas W. Smith, Deceased (party Plaintiffs), v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and George M. Patterson, Administrator of the Estate of Donald Cionci, Deceased,lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (defendant), Appellant, 411 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1969)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 411 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1969) Argued November 19, 1968
Rehearing Denied May 2, 1969
Before the entry of the default judgment Lynch's estate brought this separate action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against Lumbermens and Cionci's estate, in which it challenged Lumbermens' denial of coverage of Cionci's estate. On Lumbermens' motion, Harris, the injured passenger of Cionci, and the estate of Smith, the driver of the truck, were joined as plaintiffs. The joinder was sought and presumably granted because Harris and Smith's estate had brought separate damage actions in the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which Cionci's estate, Lynch's estate and Dutcher were defendants, and common to these claims was the question whether Lumbermens' policy covered Cionci's estate. Although the accident happened on January 17, 1958, the two state court actions remain untried.
The trial judge excluded Dutcher's testimony as against the Lynch and Smith estates regarding the terms on which he had loaned his car to Cionci, on the ground that he was incompetent under Pennsylvania's so-called Dead Man's Act. Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158, § 5(e), 28 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 322.4 The trial judge, however, permitted Dutcher to testify as against Harris, who survived the accident. The factual dispute between Harris and Lumbermens on whether Cionci had deviated from the terms of Dutcher's consent to the use of the car was submitted to the jury, which found in favor of Harris. As to the Lynch and Smith estates, the trial judge granted motions for directed verdicts against Lumbermens on the ground that with Dutcher's testimony excluded there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of permission to Cionci which flowed under Pennsylvania law from the proof of Dutcher's ownership and Cionci's admitted operation of the automobile.5 Motions for new trial and for judgment n. o. v. filed by Lumbermens were denied. 218 F. Supp. 802 (E.D. Pa. 1963).
The members of the original panel majority dissented on the ground that the jury's factual decision on Harris' claim should have been preserved because it was reached after hearing Dutcher's testimony. In their view Lumbermens was collaterally estopped by Harris' judgment from contesting the issue of deviation as to the Lynch and Smith estates, regardless whether there was any error in the exclusion of Dutcher's testimony against the two decedents. In their view it was inappropriate to cancel belatedly the declaratory judgment relief after the case had already been decided by the jury. The dissent therefore went on to consider the merits of Lumbermens' objections to the judgment, which the majority, of course, had not found it necessary to reach. 365 F.2d at 816 et seq. The Supreme Court granted certiorari (Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co., Administrator v. Patterson, Administrator, 386 U.S. 940, 87 S. Ct. 972, 17 L. Ed. 2d 872 (1967)) and unanimously reversed. 390 U.S. 102, 88 S. Ct. 733, 19 L. Ed. 2d 936 (1968).
The principle of mutuality has yielded with time to many piecemeal exceptions and they have multiplied while the rule itself seemingly remained intact. Justice Traynor, in the pioneer case of Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, 19 Cal. 2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 (1942), opened the door to a frontal reconsideration of the requirement of mutuality. In a well-known passage12 he pointed to the constitutional requirement of due process which prohibits use of the plea against a party unless he was bound by the earlier judgment as a party to it or in privity with a party.13 No such reason, however, requires that the party who relies on the prior judgment for his claim must have been a party or in privity with a party to the earlier litigation.14 Since Bernhard many cases have reconsidered the rule of mutuality with results reaching as extreme a view as that which would abolish mutuality entirely.15
We had occasion to consider the problem in Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865, 71 S. Ct. 87, 95 L. Ed. 632 (1950), where an injured longshoreman's suit against the United States for negligence of the crew and unseaworthiness of the vessel was held barred by a prior judgment against the same plaintiff in favor of the steamship company which serviced the vessel under an agreement with the United States. The plaintiff was not permitted to litigate in the second suit, against a different defendant, the issues which he had litigated and lost in the first suit. Judge Hastie, speaking for the Court, said:
"The countervailing consideration urged here is lack of mutuality of estoppel. * * * But * * * no unfairness results here from estoppel which is not mutual. In reality the argument of appellant is merely that the application of res judicata in this case makes the law asymmetrical. But the achievement of substantial justice rather than symmetry is the measure of the fairness of the rules of res judicata." (181 F.2d at 421). We have continued, however, to recognize the impropriety of holding bound by a prior judgment one who was not a party to the prior action nor in privity to a party and who therefore had no opportunity to assert his legal rights or to have his day in court. See Makariw v. Rinard, 336 F.2d 333 (3 Cir. 1964), reversing 222 F. Supp. 336 (E.D. Pa. 1963).
Of course, in this diversity action we must apply Pennsylvania law.21 We are confronted, however, with a question which has never been considered by the Pennsylvania courts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has given significant recognition to the Restatements, especially the Restatement of Torts, which it has looked to in abandoning many of the older tort doctrines in that state in favor of the views fashioned by modern scholarship. But Pennsylvania's reliance on the Restatement of Torts in liberalizing its law does not require us to assume that it would follow the strict view of mutuality expressed in the old Restatement of Judgments,22 which was promulgated before the modern erosion of mutuality occurred. Indeed, very recently in Posternack v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 421 Pa. 21, 218 A.2d 350 (1966), Pennsylvania recognized, albeit indirectly, a departure from the requirement of mutuality. There a fire insurance company sought to invoke collateral estoppel against a claimant who had lost an earlier case against another company on a different policy. The lower court refused to allow the company to amend its answer by pleading the earlier judgment, solely because of the absence of mutuality. On appeal the Court, while recognizing that factual elements might prove significant, nevertheless reversed and ordered the amendment to be allowed. The defendant thus would have the benefit of an earlier verdict in favor of another insurer in a claim on another policy where both policies appeared to have been written by the same agent under similar circumstances and both companies had made similar defenses of lack of authority and fraud. Mr. Justice Eagen said: "The Pennsylvania rule on mutuality of estoppel is by no means so rigid that the mere mention of it, without more, will defeat the right to assert res judicata as a defense in an amendment to the pleadings. Several recent cases have recognized exceptions to the general rule * * * thus showing a tendency by this Court, at least in limited areas, not to allow the technical formalities of res judicata to stand in the way of justice."23
The dissent finds a defect in the charge which Lumbermens has never raised. It asserts that there was no evidence justifying the instruction that the jury might find that permission had been granted to use the car for "perhaps a couple of hours." This ignores Dutcher's cross-examination and his admission regarding his pretrial deposition. Moreover, in a supplemental charge following a colloquy with counsel the trial judge in correcting a possible misstatement of the testimony said: "* * * I intended only to point out testimony where at one point there was a question of his [Dutcher] having to leave for home within a half hour; at another point in the testimony it appears that he had indicated he had several hours before he had to go home. This does not necessarily indicate that there was permission given to have the car for several hours."
Lumbermens has now presented a new contention — that neither Harris nor Smith's estate is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's vacation of our earlier decision because they did not join Lynch's estate in the petition for certiorari.
Dutcher's claim that as a nonparty he is not estopped by the judgments against Lumbermens from litigating the issue of his rights under the policy as against Cionci's, may be met by the argument which the Supreme Court suggested but on which it did not intimate an opinion, that Dutcher should be bound because he bypassed the opportunity to intervene. (See 390 U.S. at 114, 88 S. Ct. at 733).
There is, moreover, another element which may affect the ultimate terms of the declaratory judgment decree. At the argument before the Supreme Court counsel for the plaintiffs, in the words of Mr. Justice Harlan, "represented orally that they * * * would accept a limitation of all claims to the amount of the insurance policy" (390 U.S. at 115-116, 88 S. Ct. at 741), which was disclosed to the Supreme Court as $100,000.
The Supreme Court in concluding its opinion directed that in the event we should affirm the district court on the issues we had not previously considered, we should make "appropriate disposition preserving the judgment of the District Court and protecting the interests of nonjoined persons." (390 U.S. at 128, 88 S. Ct. at 747). We shall therefore remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. The district court should afford plaintiffs an opportunity to agree to the limitation to the policy limit of all their claims against the policy, whether arising out of judgments against Cionci or against Dutcher. If no such limitation is fixed, the district court should expressly stay any execution by virtue of the declaratory judgment decree until Dutcher shall have had a full opportunity either in the court below or in the state courts to present any claims he may have to the protection of Lumbermens' policy if any judgment is rendered against him in any of the now pending state court actions.
However, there was some question in my mind of the possibility of prejudicial error in the trial of the case, and, especially, in the court's charge where it specifically directed, at the very outset thereof, that the jury should return a directed verdict in favor of the estates of John R. Lynch and Thomas W. Smith, its authority therefor being the application of the Pennsylvania Dead Man's Act, Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158, § 5(e), 28 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 322. I had some misgivings, in view of the court's action, for the reason that the impress of their recovery, under the circumstance here, might have carried over into the case of Harris in such a closely knit factual area, in spite of the fact that the jury was told it should not consider the testimony of Dutcher as to these estates. It was a most difficult case, as the court pointed out twice in its charge, and was not the ordinary situation, as it required the jury to make compartmental decisions, with respect to the facts, involving the application of a difficult legal question.
In my judgment, the better practice here would have been, in order to avoid even the semblance of unfairness as to Lumbermens, to have said nothing to the jury about their directing verdicts in the Smith and Lynch cases, but simply, sua sponte, at the close of its charge, to merely have directed verdicts in their favor, pursuant to the last sentence of Rule 50 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: "The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury."
The District Court erred (1) in ruling that the Pennsylvania Dead Man's Act, 28 P.S. § 322, rendered Dutcher incompetent as a witness against the Lynch and Smith estates; and (2) in its instructions in the Harris trial on the score of deviation.
On this appeal, Lumbermens, as earlier stated, contends that the trial judge erred (1) in ruling that Dutcher was incompetent under the Pennsylvania Dead Man's Act as a witness against the Cionci and Lynch estates and in directing verdicts in favor of the Lynch and Smith estates, and (2) in its instructions on the score of deviation in the Harris phase of the trial, and (3) "that it was impossible for the jury to consider the Harris case impartially when it had been directed to find against Lumbermens in the Lynch and Cionci cases."
"Nor, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, * * * and his right thereto or therein has passed, either by his own act or by the act of the law, to a party on the record who represents his interest in the subject in controversy, shall any surviving or remaining party to any such thing or contract, or any other person whose interest shall be adverse to the said right of such deceased * * *, be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party * * *." 28 P.S. § 322
It is settled law in Pennsylvania that the Dead Man's Act does not render a witness incompetent in an action under the state's Wrongful Death Act,2 "for the reason that the action of wrongful death is not for damages sustained by the decedent but for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the decedent's death." Dennick, Adm'x v. Scheiwer, 381 Pa. 200, 201, 113 A.2d 318, 319 (1955).
The holding in Dennick reaffirms a prior decision to the same effect in Mann v. Weiand, 81½ Pa. 243 (1875) where it was held that the trial court erred in ruling a witness incompetent in an action for wrongful death. In so holding the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said at pages 256-257:
"This action, however, was not brought by him [the decedent], nor is it for the recovery of damages for injuries he sustained; but it is for injuries his wife sustained by his death. It is for a cause of action her husband never had. It arose on and after his death, and accrued to his widow."
Here, the Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co., administrator of the Estate of Lynch, in Civil Action No. 25149, sued the Cionci estate, under both the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts.4 Further, in the District Court's order in Civil Action 25149 which approved the $50,000 settlement of the default judgment therein, it was specifically stated that "two-fifths of any amounts received under the terms of such settlement shall be allocated recovery under the Wrongful Death Act. * * *"
He by chance happened to encounter Cionci and Lynch in a tavern in Bryn Mawr when he dropped in to "have a beer" in mid-afternoon January 17, 1958; he had known the two men for some eight to ten years; they asked his permission to use his car to drive to Ardmore, some two miles southeast, "to pay a bill"; Dutcher granted the permission requested subject to the condition that they return in half an hour; he did not give them general permission to use the car as they pleased or for as long as they pleased but only to go to Ardmore and return in half an hour; he waited for an "hour or more" for Cionci and Lynch to return and when they failed to do so he "got a ride home" and then "went back to wait for them"; he didn't see the car until the day after the accident.
"If Mr. Dutcher gave permission only to go to Ardmore and return, and Cionci drove to Media, I think that we would all agree that, when you look at this map, that goes beyond what you would call a minor deviation from the permission, because of the distance that is involved.
"There is also a possibility that Mr. Dutcher's permission was limited in space, destination and return being Ardmore, as he testified at one point, or possibly it was limited as to time. As I recall, he indicated he provided that they would be back in a half hour. Then there was some other questioning of him which seemed to indicate that perhaps a couple of hours might have been involved. But this is all for you to recall precisely what the testimony was.
"The thing that you must consider is whether Mr. Dutcher's testimony is credible and, if you determine that it is credible, you will have to interpret precisely what permission he gave to Cionci to drive this car and whether that permission was exceeded. If the permission was exceeded, then you must find in favor of the defendant." (emphasis supplied)
I am of the opinion that the District Court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury that it might find that the permission to use the car was for "perhaps a couple of hours". There wasn't an iota of evidence on which such an instruction might be premised or justified. Dutcher specifically stated that the permission was limited to a half hour to travel to Ardmore and return. His testimony that he waited for an "hour or more" for the return of his car couldn't possibly be construed as permission to use the car for "a couple of hours." This Court has held that it is prejudicial error to submit an issue to a jury "on which there was no evidence". O'Neill v. Reading Company, 306 F.2d 204, 206 (3 Cir. 1962). We there ruled that the trial judge committed prejudicial error when he instructed the jury that it might find the plaintiff driver of an automobile guilty of contributory negligence if he was unable to see an approaching train because of frost on the side windows of his car, when there was no evidence of frost on the windows. We recently applied the principle stated in O'Neill v. Reading Company, supra, in Freifield v. Hennessy, 353 F.2d 97 (3 Cir. 1965) and Eichmann v. Dennis, 347 F.2d 978, 981 (3 Cir. 1965).
The majority's view that the District Court remedied its error in instructing the jury that it might find that permission had been granted to use the car "for perhaps a couple of hours", without limitation as to the trip to Ardmore and return to Bryn Mawr, when it later told the jury that it was their recollection of the testimony which was to govern, begs the question of error.
Pennsylvania law governs the scope of collateral estoppel in the instant case. Gramm v. Lincoln, 257 F.2d 250, 255 (9 Cir. 1958); Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 166 F.2d 127, 138, 1 A.L.R.2d 370 (3 Cir. 1947), cert. den. 334 U.S. 838, 68 S. Ct. 1495, 92 L. Ed. 1763 (1948); Cobb v. Clark, 257 F. Supp. 175 (M.D.N.C. 1966), aff'd per curiam, 375 F.2d 773 (4 Cir. 1967). See also Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 308 U.S. 530, 309 U.S. 4, 60 S. Ct. 215, 84 L. Ed. 447, 537 (1940). Thus, the majority's motions as to the better rule of law, and decisions applying the law of jurisdictions other than Pennsylvania, are of secondary value, since our function is to determine what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would hold if it were now faced with the identical problem. Just as with the Pennsylvania Dead Man's Statute, we cannot apply the "more liberal" rule or the "modern" rule unless Pennsylvania decisional law convinces us that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would do likewise. Our problem here is not resolved by non-Pennsylvania decisions applying collateral estoppel in factual situations analogous to that presented in the instant case. While the one "fair and full opportunity to litigate" rationale of the majority has been accepted in a few opinions, a review of the Pennsylvania cases discloses that this is not the rule applied by the Pennsylvania courts.
A long line of Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases has firmly established the mutuality doctrine as part of the law of Pennsylvania. See, e. g., Shulze's Appeal, 1 Pa. 251 (1845); Chandler's Appeal, 100 Pa. 262 (1882); Walker v. City of Philadelphia, 195 Pa. 168, 45 A. 657 (1900); Woodburn v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 294 Pa. 174, 144 A. 93 (1928); Evans v. Moffat, 388 Pa. 559, 131 A.2d 141 (1957); 20 Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Judgment §§ 311-313. This obviously does not mean that only those formally a party to a judgment are bound by it. Privies of parties are, of course, bound. See, e. g., American Surety Company v. Dickson, 345 Pa. 328, 28 A.2d 316 (1942); Stevenson v. Silverman, 417 Pa. 187, 208 A.2d 786 (1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 833, 86 S. Ct. 76, 15 L. Ed. 2d 76. Moreover, the addition of new parties in the second suit does not automatically defeat the application of res judicata or collateral estoppel. See, e. g., Hochman v. Mortgage Finance Corporation, 289 Pa. 260, 137 A. 252 (1927); Helmig v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 389 Pa. 21, 131 A.2d 622 (1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 832, 78 S. Ct. 46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 44. Also, the Pennsylvania courts have expressly recognized certain limited exceptions to the rule requiring mutuality. See, e. g., Brobston v. Darby Borough, 290 Pa. 331, 138 A. 849 (1927) (collateral estoppel where same plaintiff brings suit against a defendant whose liability arises from the alleged wrongful act of another who has been exonerated in a prior suit); Helmig v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., supra (same); Hurtt v. Stirone, 416 Pa. 493, 206 A.2d 624 (1965), cert. den. 381 U.S. 925, 85 S. Ct. 1561, 14 L. Ed. 2d 684 (plaintiff allowed to use jury verdict that defendant guilty of crime of extortion). In no decision, however, has the Pennsylvania Supreme Court indicated that it is now prepared to abandon the requirement of mutuality or to make an exception to the rule applicable to the instant case. In determining the limits of the doctrine of mutuality, the Pennsylvania courts have considered whether the one against whom the judgment is used has in fact litigated the issues in an earlier action, but they have never held that merely because a party has litigated the issues in a prior action, he is barred from litigating them anew against one not bound by the prior judgment. The Pennsylvania cases in the field show that whatever might be this Court's view of the "modern" rule, the Pennsylvania courts still adhere to the doctrine of mutuality and have made no exception applicable to the situation presented in the instant case. This view is reinforced by the heavy reliance the Pennsylvania courts have placed on the Restatement of Judgments since it was first published. The Restatement sections relating to mutuality certainly do not permit the estates of Smith and Lynch to utilize the verdict and judgment in favor of Harris.
The action against American was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, while that against Reading was brought in the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 for Philadelphia County. In both actions the same defenses were interposed — non-issuance of the policies, lack of authority by the broker, failure of the broker to have a state broker's license, fraudulent representation by plaintiff, and issuance of the policy after the fire. The action against American came to trial first and resulted in verdict and judgment for the insurance company.
"The lower court denied the amendment solely because of the absence of mutuality of estoppel. While it is true * * * that an amendment showing an error of law on its face should not be allowed, we are not convinced that such an error is patently evident here. "The Pennsylvania rule on mutuality of estoppel is by no means so rigid that the mere mention of it, without more, will defeat the right to assert res judicata as a defense in an amendment to the pleadings. Several recent cases have recognized exceptions to the general rule. * * * Helmig v. Rockwell Mfg. Co. * * * Stevenson v. Silverman * * * and Hurtt v. Stirone * * * are other cases evidencing exceptions, thus showing a tendency by this Court, at least in limited areas, not to allow the technical formalities of res judicata to stand in the way of justice.
"On the posture of the present record, it is far from clear whether or not the doctrine of res judicata should be applied. Certainly, the question is not so open and shut as to now permit its determination as a matter of law. * * *" 421 Pa. at 25, 218 A.2d at 352.
While the opinion does indeed indicate that in a proper case one not a party or privy may benefit from a prior judgment, as noted earlier, the Pennsylvania rule requiring mutuality is not an absolute one. If either insurance company were held liable, it would probably have a suit over against the other for a pro rata share of the judgment, based on the provisions of the policies. In view of this, defensive use of the first judgment in Posternack might well have come within one of the best established exceptions to the mutuality doctrine — that providing that an indemnitee can use as a defense a judgment in favor of the indemnitor. Thus, it is no help to the majority position that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should hold that lack of mutuality, standing alone, is not enough to keep a party from pleading res judicata as a defense.
The majority here resorts to an offensive use of the doctrine, as the text writers class it. It is true that such a use has been approved in three cases cited by the majority — Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (2 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 377 U.S. 934, 84 S. Ct. 1338, 12 L. Ed. 2d 298; United States v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 709 (D. Nev. 1962), aff'd United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379 (9 Cir. 1964), petition for cert. dismissed, 379 U.S. 951, 85 S. Ct. 452, 13 L. Ed. 2d 549; and B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N.Y.2d 141, 278 N.Y.S.2d 596, 225 N.E.2d 195 (1967).8 Apart from the fact that in my view these cases were wrongly decided,9 it must be noted that in Zdanok, the defendant, who was the real and primary party in interest, was specifically found by the Court to have "had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue effectively", a consideration absent here by reason of the District Court's erroneous ruling that Dutcher was incompetent to testify against the plaintiff Lynch and Smith estates and the resulting directed verdicts in favor of these estates.10
Our cases of Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419 (3 Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 865, 71 S. Ct. 87, 95 L. Ed. 632, and Makariw v. Rinard, 336 F.2d 333 (3 Cir. 1964) do not support the majority's application of collateral estoppel here. In Bruszewski, it was held that judgment against the plaintiff in a prior suit against the Isthmian Steamship Company was res adjudicata with respect to his second suit against the United States which owned the vessel operated by the steamship company.
In Makariw we held that neither res adjudicata nor collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff's recovery because the defendant, in a prior action, arising out of the same accident, had recovered against the employer of the plaintiff's decedent on the finding that the decedent had been guilty of negligence. We did so on the ground that the plaintiff, the decedent's administratrix, had not had her day in court. The premise of the majority's theory is that the doctrine is applicable here because "The primary adversaries, therefore, were Cionci's estate and Lumbermens, and it was through Cionci's estate, which was a named party, that the plaintiffs, including Harris, claimed."
The clause insures "any other person [than the owner] using such automobile, provided the actual use thereof is with the permission of the named insured * * *."
The Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158, § 5(e), 28 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 322, provides:
"Nor, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, * * * and his right thereto or therein has passed, either by his own act or by the act of the law, to a party on the record who represents his interest in the subject in controversy, shall any surviving or remaining party to such thing or contract, or any other person whose interest shall be adverse to the said right of such deceased * * *, be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party * * *."
Act of April 15, 1851, P.L. 669, § 19, 12 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 1601; Act of April 26, 1855, P.L. 309, § 1 as amended, 12 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Annot. § 1602
P.L. 512, § 601, 20 Purdon's Pa.Stat. Annot. § 320.601
See the classic study, Scott, Collateral Estoppel by Judgment, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1942)
"The criteria for determining who may assert a plea of res judicata differ fundamentally from the criteria for determining against whom a plea of res judicata may be asserted. The requirements of due process of law forbid the assertion of a plea of res judicata against a party unless he was bound by the earlier litigation in which the matter was decided. * * * He is bound by that litigation only if he has been a party thereto or in privity with a party thereto. * * * There is no compelling reason, however, for requiring that the party asserting the plea of res judicata must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation." 19 Cal. 2d at 811-812, 122 P.2d at 894. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co., 6 W.W.Harr. 124, 36 Del. 124, 172 A. 260 (Del.Super.1934)
See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport, 247 U.S. 464, 476, 38 S. Ct. 566, 62 L. Ed. 1215 (1918); Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Co., Administrator v. Patterson, Administrator, 390 U.S. 102, 110, 88 S. Ct. 733, 19 L. Ed. 2d 936 (1968)
See, e.g., B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N.Y.2d 141, 278 N.Y.S.2d 596, 225 N.E.2d 195 (1967)
Currie, Mutuality of Collateral Estoppel: Limits of the Bernhard Doctrine, 9 Stan. L. Rev. 281 (1957)
For discussion of this problem see Currie, supra at p. 308. For the railroad or airplane accident cases Currie suggests that mutuality should be required because of the injustice to the defendant faced with many successive suits. See also Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934, 84 S. Ct. 1338, 12 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1964), in which Judge Friendly found that the defense in the first suit was diligent and adequate and therefore applied collateral estoppel notwithstanding the absence of mutuality. Cf. Berner v. British Commonwealth Pac. Airlines, Ltd., 346 F.2d 532 (2 Cir. 1965). To the same effect as Zdanok is Graves v. Associated Transport, Inc., 344 F.2d 894 (4 Cir. 1965). See also United States v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 709, 725-729 (D. Nev. 1962), affirmed on this point, United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379, 404-405 (9 Cir. 1964), cert. dismissed, 379 U.S. 951, 85 S. Ct. 452, 13 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1964).
Adoption of this standard might require an examination in each case of the factual question whether the party sought to be estopped had a "full and fair" opportunity to litigate the issue effectively. See Semmel, Collateral Estoppel, Mutuality and Joinder of Parties, 68 Colum. L. Rev. 1457, 1468-71 (1968)
Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 166 F.2d 127, 138, 1 A.L.R.2d 370 (3 Cir. 1947), cert. denied 334 U.S. 838, 68 S. Ct. 1495, 92 L. Ed. 1763 (1948). See also Wright, Federal Courts, ch. 9 (1963)
See, e.g., Restatement of Judgments, § 93 (1942)
Compare Bruszewski, supra, 181 F.2d at 421 n. 2, where it was noted that Bruszewski had sustained a single injury from a single cause and therefore might have consolidated his claims against the two defendants in one suit rather than have brought separate suits as he did. Judge Hastie said: "While the claimant was not obliged thus to consolidate his suits, no canon of fairness requires that he be given the special advantage of twice trying the same issue where he did not elect to join them."
"First, if you do not believe Mr. Dutcher at all, if there is no credible testimony, Mr. Harris has the presumption operating in his favor and you would then have to conclude that Mr. Cionci was driving with Mr. Dutcher's permission
"But if you determine that Mr. Dutcher is credible, believable, that the testimony which he gave is worthy of belief by you, then you must consider just precisely what it was that he said. What permission did he grant?
"There was testimony, as I recall, from Mr. Dutcher that Lynch and Cionci indicated they wanted to go to Ardmore, perhaps a mile or two away from Bryn Mawr, to pay a bill, or something to that effect. It is for you to determine and to recall precisely what the testimony was.
"The thing that you must consider is whether Mr. Dutcher's testimony is credible and, if you determine that it is credible, you will have to interpret precisely what permission he gave to Cionci to drive this car and whether that permission was exceeded. If the permission was exceeded, then you must find in favor of the defendant."
"All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed shall be deemed parties in this court, unless the petitioner shall notify the clerk of this court in writing of his belief that one or more of the parties below have no interest in the outcome of the petition. . . . All parties other than the petitioner shall be respondents, but respondents who support the position of the petitioner shall meet the time schedule for filing papers which is provided for the petitioner. . . ."
"The amended rules adopted on June 12, 1967, shall become effective on October 2, 1967, except that with respect to cases granted review prior to that date, the time limits for briefs and the provisions regarding the printing of records shall continue to be governed by the rules as they were before amendment."
12 P.S. §§ 1601, 1602. The statute provides that specified relatives of one whose death has been wrongfully caused by unlawful violence or negligence shall be entitled to recover damages for any injuries causing death, and in the event none of the specified relatives survive the decedent, then the personal representative shall be entitled to recover certain enumerated damages, viz., hospital, nursing, medical expenses and expenses of administration
20 P.S. § 320.601
That appears from the affidavit of L. C. Pirrung, Jr. which states: "Sarah B. Smith, Administratix of the Estate of Thomas W. Smith, Deceased, instituted suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at December Term 1959, No. 1047 to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of the said Thomas W. Smith, Deceased."
See the criticism in 64 Colum. L. Rev. 1141 (1964) of the Zdanok case.
Likewise, in DeWitt the majority expressly stated that defendant offered "no reason for not holding him to the determination in the first action"; that it was "unquestioned (and probably unquestionable) that the first action was defended with full vigor and opportunity to be heard"; and that the plaintiff in the second action, the owner of the vehicle involved in a collision, derived his right of action from the plaintiff who won in the first action, the driver of the vehicle. 278 N.Y.S.2d at 601, 225 N.E.2d at 199.