Court Opinion

ID: 9640905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:17:51.80454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:33.582661
License: Public Domain

*833MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge.
I concur in the principal opinion. I write separately to explore the preclusive effect of the final judgment in Shonnie Newton and the Noltes’ claim against Trade Winds Distributing Co. on their claim for damages against Ford. It is an issue that would be presented to the circuit court on remand.
Put simply, the amount of damages incurred by Ms. Newton and the Noltes arising out of this collision was litigated fully and fairly in their claim against Trade Winds Distributing. The judgment entered on that claim has become final because it was not appealed. The judgment stands for the proposition that Ms. Newton suffered damages of $4 million for the death of her husband and the Noltes suffered damages of $4.5 million for personal injuries.
The doctrine of issue preclusion, traditionally known as “collateral estoppel,” ought to preclude plaintiffs from a damages judgment that exceeds those amounts. Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1984), and Oates v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 583 S.W.2d 713 (Mo. banc 1979), set forth the factors that govern whether it is appropriate for a court to apply the doctrine to preclude re-litigation of an issue decided in a former proceeding:
“(1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issue presented in the present action;
“(2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits;
“(3) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication ...” Oates, 583 S.W.2d at 719.
To these three factors, this Court noted that most courts add a fourth: “whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit....” Id. Traditionally, the doctrine of issue preclusion did not apply to the subsequent litigation unless both the party to be bound by the earlier determination of the issue and the party seeking preclusion were the same in both cases. That doctrine of “mutuality” gave way in Oates and Hudson to fairness as the “overriding consideration” in determining whether issue preclusion or collateral estoppel should be applied. Id.
How would those factors apply in the remand of this case? We start by noting that the trial of this case involved the joinder of their separate claims by plaintiffs Newton and the Noltes against the two defendants, Trade Winds, the employer of the truck driver who collided with Trooper Newton’s Highway Patrol cruiser, and Ford, the manufacturer of the patrol car. Rule 52.05 authorized the joinder of the Newton and Nolte claims in the same lawsuit because they arose out of the same occurrence and had a common issue of law or fact. Similarly, the rule authorized the separate claims of Newton and the Noltes against Trade Winds and Ford to be joined in the same lawsuit because they arose out of the same occurrence and had a common issue of law or fact.1
*834When the jury’s verdict was rendered, separate judgments as to the two defendants resulted.2 There was a final judgment against Trade Winds for $4 million in favor of Newton and a judgment in the amount of $4.5 million against Trade Winds in favor of the Noltes. These judgments are final. The circuit court entered judgments on the jury verdicts in favor of Ford and against both Newton and the Noltes. The judgments in favor of Ford are reversed and now the claims against Ford are remanded for a new trial, in accordance with the principal opinion.
The amount of actual damages appears to have been litigated fully and fairly by the plaintiffs in their case against Trade Winds, and the final judgment may preclude the issue of the amount of actual damages from being re-determined in plaintiffs’ favor. Though the doctrine of issue preclusion may make the jury’s actual-damage calculation binding upon the plaintiffs, the actual-damages calculation rendered against Trade Winds is not binding upon Ford because there is, as yet, no judgment that binds Ford.
Because Ford is not bound by the Trade Winds judgment, Ford will be free to argue whatever it wishes as to the amount of plaintiffs’ damages. To avoid influencing the jury by referring to the amount of the earlier verdict, the plaintiffs likewise should be allowed to ask the jury to award any amount of damages they believe the evidence shows.
But the earlier judgment between the plaintiffs and Trade Winds as to actual damages would estop the plaintiffs from obtaining a judgment for such damages in excess of the amounts determined by the original jury. Although the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel is to be addressed in the trial court in the first instance to determine whether the factors governing the doctrine should be applied, there seems little doubt that the doctrine applies. Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d at 70. Certainly the three factors set out above are met: (1) the issue of damages is the same; (2) there was an adjudication on the merits; and (3) the parties to be bound (Newton and the Noltes) are the same. There is nothing in this record to suggest that applying the doctrine would be unfair. Id.
On remand, there also is an open question as to whether the plaintiffs have a submissible claim against Ford for punitive and aggravating-circumstances damages. There is now a full trial record that can be reviewed before the re-trial of the claims against Ford to determine whether plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to submit the punitive and aggravating-circumstances damages claims to the jury.
The modern procedural rules allow these plaintiffs to join their claims in one proceeding and to try their separate claims against the two defendants in the same trial. The joinder of claims against defendants was possible because there were common issues of fact; among those common issues was the question of the amount of damages necessary to compensate the plaintiffs. From this obvious advantage comes the risk that the first trial may produce results that bind the parties in the second trial. The modern doctrine of issue preclusion can be used to promote judicial *835economy by confining the issues in the new trial to those that need to be tried and to avoid re-trying matters that ought to be considered settled by the first trial and judgment.
The prospect that the doctrine of issue preclusion doctrine would be applied in the case on remand may cause the parties to assess whether the remaining claims can be resolved by settlement or whether another trial is needed.

. Rule 52.05(a) provides that ''[a]ll persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrences or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested *834in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.”

. Though the judgments may be entered on the same document, they are separate judgments entered, respectively, as judgments on the verdicts.