Court Opinion

ID: 9732773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:34:38.239698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:33.282055
License: Public Domain

STONE, J.
I concur in the result of the main opinion, which is predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. Additionally, I believe the doctrine of collateral estoppel enunciated in Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 [122 P.2d 892], and articulated in Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins, Co., Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601 [25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 *201P.2d 439], is applicable here. This is because (1) no independent act of negligence on the part of the employer is alleged so that the liability issues were fully litigated on the merits in the former trial, and (2) the retraxit was entered after trial; it was not the result of a pretrial settlement made before liability had been judicially determined.
The verdict in the prior action fixed liability upon the defendant herein, and exonerated from negligence the driver-employee of the plaintiff herein. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and even appealed from the judgment inadvertently entered upon the jury’s verdict. Then, defendant settled with the employee-driver who filed a retraxit.
Had the plaintiff in this case been a passenger, not chargeable with contributory negligence, he should be permitted to raise the issue of collateral estoppel as to the issue of liability, just as the employer is doing here. (See United States v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 709.)
In the light of the principles upon which the doctrine of collateral estoppel is grounded (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd., supra, 58 Cal.2d 601; Currie, Civil Procedure: The Tempest Brews, 53 Cal.L.Rev. 25), there appears to be no reason for limiting the doctrine to an employer-employee relationship. The critical question is whether the doctrine applies to those issues of a bifurcated trial that are fully litigated whether resolved by a final judgment or by a retraxit after verdict or decision of the court. If collateral estoppel is not applicable, the bifurcated trial becomes a vehicle by which a defendant can, by using the procedure defendant followed here, litigate identical liability issues a number of times in multiple actions arising from the same transaction.
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 26, 1967, and the petition of the real parties in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 27,1967. Peters, J., and Most, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.