Opinion ID: 601518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims and Compulsory Counterclaims

Text: 17 McDaniel originally filed his suit because he sustained injuries while working for the Railroad in Anheuser's railyard. In his Complaint, McDaniel alleged that Anheuser was liable for his injuries because it was guilty of various acts of omission and commission, all of which were negligence as that term is known in the law, that proximately caused his injuries. 14 McDaniel did not allege any form of either strict liability or products liability against Anheuser and did not name Force at all. 18 Anheuser then impleaded Force as a third party defendant, alleging contractual indemnity, contribution, and commonlaw indemnity for any liability to McDaniel resulting from acts of Force's employees or agents. Force subsequently filed a counterclaim against Anheuser for commonlaw contribution and indemnity, adopting by reference, and pleading against Anheuser, all of McDaniel's original allegations. 19 Rule 13(a) describes a compulsory counterclaim as any claim which at the time of the serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. 15 A counterclaim is compulsory when both the original claim and the counterclaim arise from the same aggregate of operative facts. 16 By the time this case proceeded to trial, Anheuser was the subject of claims, cross-claims, 17 and counterclaims regarding McDaniel's injuries that had occurred in the Anheuser railyard. Consequently, any counterclaim by Anheuser against Force that arose out of this occurrence necessarily had to be brought in the instant suit or be barred. A counterclaim which is compulsory but is not brought is thereafter barred. 18 20