Court Opinion

ID: 9525634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:05:45.267306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:50.471940
License: Public Domain

O’Connor, J.
(concurring). I agree with the court that St. 1992, c. 66, is unconstitutional for the reasons the court has expressed. However, I also agree with Justice Wilkins, for *705the reason he has expressed, that the court should not have reached the issue of constitutionality without first determining whether the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. If the claims are barred by that common law doctrine, as I think they are, it is inappropriate for the court to address the constitutional question.
Justice Wilkins states that “quite obviously” res judicata does not bar the plaintiffs’ claims and that “[t]he Legislature enacted c. 66 with the express intention that it should apply to the facts of this case.” Ante at 704. I find no language in c. 66 that either suggests that the Legislature ever considered the doctrine of res judicata or that expressly or impliedly overrides the application of that doctrine to this case.
“The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the necessity for finality in litigation. ‘Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties.’. . . Considerations of fairness and the requirements of efficient judicial administration dictate that an opposing party in a particular action as well as the court is entitled to be free from continuing attempts to relitigate the same claim. For this reason the principle of res judicata requires that a valid and final personal judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter serve as a bar to any further proceedings between the same parties on the same claim.” (Citations omitted.) Wright Mach. Corp. v. Seaman-Andwall Corp., 364 Mass. 683, 688 (1974). Two claims are the same for purposes of the doctrine of res judicata when they “grow[ ] out of the same transaction, act, or agreement, and seek[ ] redress for the same wrong.” Fassas v. First Bank & Trust Co., 353 Mass. 628, 629 (1968), quoting Mackintosh v. Chambers, 285 Mass. 594, 596 (1934). See Hermes Automation Technology, Inc. v. Hyundai Elec. Indus. Co., 915 F.2d 739, 750 (1st Cir. 1990) (observing that “[ujnder Massachusetts principles of claim preclusion, a final judgment in one action generally precludes the plaintiff from bringing another action *706against the same defendant if the second action arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the prior action”); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 (1982) (a claim extinguished by the doctrine of res judicata “includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the [original] action arose”).
The plaintiffs claim in this case that they are entitled to be compensated by the defendant because of injuries the plaintiff Francis X. St. Germaine, III, received on June 15, 1989, as a result of certain conduct of the defendant. In a prior case, they made the same claims — based on the same set of facts and underlying occurrences — and those claims were concluded by a final judgment for the defendant. They are not entitled to relitigate the same case simply because the law has changed since the first case ended.
The plaintiffs in this case presented all of their legal theories — negligence and strict liability — in the first action. The defendant was adjudged not liable under both theories. Today, under the new statute, if it were constitutional, the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims would likely prevail, but that does not change the fact that the plaintiffs have already had their day in court. The defendant is entitled to rely on the first judgment.