Court Opinion

ID: 9646989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:19:32.925419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:44.396892
License: Public Domain

Condon, J.,
dissenting. Some of the difficulty here is due to inartistic pleading with its consequential confusion of issues of fact and law. The defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings which were closed by plaintiff’s replication to defendant’s plea of puis darrein continuance is without precedent in our system of common-law pleading. Under that system plaintiff’s replications having traversed the allegations of the plea and concluded to the country presented an issue of fact. By not demurring to the replication defendant automatically joined issue thereon by virtue of general laws 1938, chapter 522, §1. That statute provides inter alia that no pleadings need “be formally closed either to the court or to the jury, but the denial of any material allegation shall constitute an issue of fact.”
In such circumstances it was irregular to entertain on the day when these cases were called for trial a so-called motion for judgment on the pleadings which was designed to raise a question of law. In my opinion it would be highly desirable from the viewpoint of preserving an orderly system of pleading to remit these cases to the superior court with direction to strike out defendant’s motion and try the issue raised by the formal pleadings. However, since the majority of the court has decided to waive this irregularity and consider the issue of law raised by the motion I am constrained to do likewise.
After careful consideration I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority that each of these cases is res judicata by reason of each judgment respectively in Chase v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. and Harding, v. Same, 73 R. I. 51. The basic issue in each of those cases, was whether McKenzie was operating Carr’s automobile with his permission within the meaning of that term in *46the policy. That issue was an indispensable element of each plaintiff’s case which he was bound to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence in order to make McKenzie an insured under the policy for whose negligence the defendant insurer would be liable. The defendant in the instant case was not a party in those cases and had no property interest in the result thereof. He was, therefore, not concerned with the resolution of the issue there raised and could not be bound by any decisions therein.
Conceivably if the decisions had been adverse to the defendant insurer and- the amount of the policy was insufficient to satisfy the judgments against McKenzie these plaintiffs could not have relied upon such decisions in the instant cases against Carr as conclusive proof that his automobile was being used with his consent by McKenzie at the time of the accident. Not having been a party in the actions against the defendant insurer he would be entitled to have that issue passed upon de novo in the actions brought against him. Conversely he is not entitled to rely upon the judgments in those cases favorable to the defendant insurer as conclusive proof in the instant actions against him that McKenzie did not have such consent. Unless such judgments were binding on both plaintiffs and defendant here they are binding on none. Poulos v. Coast Cities Coaches Inc., 16 N.J. Misc. 156. If a party in a later action cannot be prejudiced by an adverse result in a former action he cannot claim a benefit by a favorable result therein. Smith v. Fischer Baking Co., 105 N.J.L. 567. And it has also been held that there can be no estoppel by former judgment unless it is mutual and equally available to both parties. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159.
In the cases at bar the basic issue was whether McKenzie was operating Carr’s automobile on the public highway with his consent, but that issue was affirmatively raised by the defendant and was no part of either plaintiff’s case. Such *47consent was presumed as a matter of law upon proof that the automobile was registered in the name of the defendant. To overcome that presumption it was necessary for defendant to plead absence of such consent in an answer and affirmatively prove it. G. L. 1938, chap. 98, §10, as amended by P. L. 1940, chap. 867. In such circumstances if defendant’s evidence did not amount to a fair preponderance the plaintiffs would be entitled to a verdict. And this would be so if the evidence were evenly balanced on that issue, as the plaintiffs would be under no obligation to disprove the defendant’s allegation of absence of consent. In this respect there is an essential difference between the plaintiffs’ actions against defendant and their actions against the insurer. There Carr’s permission to McKenzie to operate Carr’s automobile was an indispensable element of plaintiffs’ cases which they were bound to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence. If the evidence were evenly balanced plaintiffs could not prevail.
Superficially considered this may seem to be only a question of procedure concerning the burden of proof. In reality, however, it is quite definitely a matter of substantive law. Emond v. Fallon, 56 R. I. 419. In that case we said of the statute as it then stood that it clearly made a change in the substantive law and not merely a new rule of evidence. Later amendments to the statute have but served to emphasize that view. This being so it must be obvious that plaintiffs’ actions against defendant are not identical with their actions against the insurer. The substantive law governing those actions gave plaintiffs a much more restricted right to recover against the insurer than the statute gives to the plaintiffs against the defendant in the cases at bar. In the latter cases plaintiffs will be entitled to have them considered by the jury without offering any evidence on the issue of absence of consent raised by defendant. Gemma v. Rotondo, 62 R. I. 293. In the former cases they would not have been so entitled, as in such *48circumstances there would have been no evidence for the jury to consider on the issue of McKenzie’s permission from Carr to operate his automobile, an essential element in the plaintiffs’ cases against the insurer.
The authorities are in substantial agreement that whether the evidence in the second action would have supported the judgment in the first action is a good test of whether the judgment in one action may be pleaded in bar of a second action. Williams v. Daisey, 7 Harr. (Del.) 161; Phillips v. Phillips, 118 N. J. Eq. 189; Pickeral v. Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, 177 Va. 743; Freeman on Judgments, p. 1447; 50 C.J.S. Judgments, §648, pp. 88, 89. In the latter text it is stated: “In determining whether causes of action are identical so as to warrant application of the rule of res judicata, the test most commonly stated is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first; if so the prior judgment is a bar; otherwise it is not.” Idem, “If, however, the evidence offered in the second suit is sufficient to authorize a recovery, but could not have produced a different result in the first suit, the failure of plaintiff in the first suit is no bar to his recovery in the other suit, although it is for the same cause of action.”
Defendant argues, however, that there was privity between him and his insurer in the plaintiffs’ actions against it, and, therefore, the judgments against plaintiffs in those actions inure in his favor. In my opinion there was no such privity. In seeking to escape liability under the policy for the negligence of McKenzie the insurer was not defending any property right of defendant but was in fact doing quite the opposite. It was interested solely in restricting its contractual liability under the policy regardless of the effect this might have upon the ultimate liability of the defendant. In other words there was no identity of interests between them in those actions. Whatever the *49result thereof defendant here could not be bound thereby.
Absolute identity of interest is essential to the existence of privity. The true ground upon which privity is founded is property and not mere personal relation. The fact that two parties as litigants in two different actions happen to be interested in proving or disproving the same facts creates no privity between them. Logan v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line R. R., 82 S. C. 518. See also Bigelow on Estoppel, 148; Freeman on Judgments, §162; Smith v. Moore, 24 Am. Rep. 479. The participation of the defendant by way of assisting the insurer in the defense of the actions brought against it does not alter the above-stated rule. Such participation because of general or personal interest does not make one privy to the judgments in such cases. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 314. There the court said at page 206: “The fact that a party has fully litigated his cause of action in one suit and has been defeated is of no avail in another suit, to which a stranger to the first suit is a party, involving precisely the same issues.” As to estoppel it stated at page 217: “* * * there can be no estoppel arising out of a judgment, unless the same parties have had their day in court touching the matter litigated, and unless the judgment is equally available to both parties.” “ ‘Estoppels to be good/ ” it further observed, “ ‘must be mutual.’ ”
If the judgments in the actions against the insurer had been favorable to the plaintiffs they could not have relied upon them in the case at bar as binding upon the defendant, he being neither a party therein nor a privy thereto. Defendant not being bound by such judgments could not avail himself of any benefit therefrom in plaintiffs’ actions against him. Those judgments, therefore, not being available mutually to plaintiffs and defendant here, cannot be pleaded in estoppel of the instant actions.
On the above-stated reasons I rest my dissent from the opinion of the majority. In my opinion, on neither the *50strict doctrine of res judicata nor on the somewhat broader, though not essentially different, principle of estoppel by judgment is the defendant entitled to judgment on his motion therefor. Rather, I am of the opinion that these cases ought to be remitted to the superior court for trial on the pleadings as formally closed by plaintiffs’ replications.

Sherwood & Clifford, Sidney Clifford, Raymond E. Jordan, for plaintiffs.

Francis V. Reynolds, for defendant.