Court Opinion

ID: 9665649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:53:52.928957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.410018
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
concurring in the result.
The history of this litigation shows the following facts: On June 21, 1963, a truck belonging to Peter Pan Bakers, Inc., and driven by John C. Lorenzen was in an accident with a truck belonging to Continental Baking Company, being driven by William J. Vincent. The drivers of the trucks were both killed. Each driver was alone in his vehicle. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident.
On September 6, 1963, Betty L. Lorenzen, administratrix of the estate of John C. Lorenzen, deceased, brought an action in the district court for Douglas County against Continental Baking Company and impleaded Peter Pan Bakers, Inc., because of its right of subrogation for workmen’s compensation paid for the death of its employee Lorenzen. On September 20, 1963, Wilma Vincent, special administratrix of the estate of William J. Vincent, ■deceased, brought an action in the district court for *209Douglas County against Peter Pan Bakers, Inc. Continental Baking Company was joined as a defendant to have its right of subrogation determined. It is apparent that both actions were pending in the district court at the same time. The Lorenzen case was first tried. No party to either action made any attempt to join the other by stipulation or court order in order to get all parties into court to determine all issues between the parties in a single action. Admittedly a failure to seek a joinder or consolidation of the two cases does not redound to the prejudice of either.
Traditional res judicata could not be properly asserted by the defendant in the second action for the reason that neither the plaintiff nor anyone in privity with her was a party to the first action. It is a fundamental rule that traditional res judicata is not available against one not a party in person or by privity, even if the issues be the same. An employer and employee in actions such as we have before us are not in privity with each other. Each cause of action is the plaintiff’s cause.
It is a general rule that every person is entitled to his day in court. The general notion exists that this is an infallible rule without exception. But this is not so. Situations may arise where issue preclusion or collateral estoppel may be applied. It is true that issue preclusion or collateral estoppel are extensions of the rules applicable to res judicata. But such rules are of equal force with the rule that every person is entitled to his day in court. When one applies, the other does not.
If the rule applies in all cases that one not a party to litigation, either in person or by one in privity, as the majority opinion holds, a very anomalous situation could result; In the instant case, the result could well be calamitous from the standpoint of reason, law, and justice. In the first case, the jury found that Vincent was negligent and Lorenzen was not, and this court affirmed this finding on appeal. In the second case, the jury could find that Lorenzen was negligent and Vincent was not, *210and. result in verdicts and judgments for each, against the other’s employer on the identical evidence. That an injustice would have been done to one of the employers is self-evident. The law cannot tolerate such a result.
The basic reasoning behind the rule that one not a party to a suit may relitigate the issues is that he has had no opportunity to control his lawsuit and he should be permitted to retry the issues. With this I agree, if, and only if, he has suffered harm in not being able to furnish his own evidence in support of his cause of action. I submit, however, that if there are no new or different issues or evidence, the final judgment in the first litigation should be subject to the defenses of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. In such a case, a party should not be permitted to relitigate the matter. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff is no more entitled to re-litigate the case than is a member of a class in a class suit who was not a party to such suit. If, on the other hand, the issues or evidence are not the same, then the case should proceed to trial under the evidence that is not the same as in the first case. Where the evidence in the second case is substantially different than in the first, judgments obtained are not on the same evidence and may well warrant different verdicts.
Having come to these conclusions, it is my view that the judgment should be reversed on the ground that the motion to dismiss on the theory of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion was prematurely made. A determination of the applicability of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion cannot be made 'until plaintiff’s evidence in the second case has been put in evidence. If at that time it is determined that the issues and evidence are the same as in the first case, the defense of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel is available and the motion should be sustained. If the issues or evidence are substantially different than in the first trial, then the motion should be overruled.
This case appears to be one of first impression in this *211state. But the court should not by-pass the problem and adhere to an existing rule that has the potential to do an injustice. It is the duty of this court, that it should not shirk, to provide a procedure that will properly dispose of the litigation without doing an injustice to anyone. I submit that there is nothing presently before the court from which it can be determined that issue preclusion or collateral estoppel is not available or that it would unfairly deny plaintiff the right to relitigate the issues finally determined in Lorenzen v. Continental Baking Co., 180 Neb. 23, 141 N. W. 2d 163.