Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v.

Parks
Court of Appeals of Indiana
390 N.E.2d 1078 (1979)

Rule of Law
Issue preclusion allows the judgment in the prior ac!on to operate as an estoppel as
to those facts or ques!ons actually li!gated and determined in the prior ac!on.

Facts
The Parks were injured when their car collided with Illinois Central Gulf Railroad’s
(Illinois) (defendant) train. Jessie Parks (plain!ff) sued Illinois for loss of Bertha Parks’s
services and consor!um, and the court found for Illinois. Bertha sought and recovered
damages for her injuries. When Jessie sued Illinois for his own injuries, Illinois moved for
summary judgment on the ground that his claim was barred by claim preclusion and that
the case had already been decided by Jessie’s prior ac!on. The trial court ruled that
Jessie’s claim was not barred by claim preclusion. Illinois appealed.

Issue
Whether a judgment against the plain!ff for loss of services and consor!um bars his
subsequent claim for damages.

Holding and Reasoning (Lybrook, J.)

No. Claim preclusion precludes the reli!ga!on of a cause of ac!on finally determined
between the par!es, and decrees that a judgment rendered is a complete bar to any
subsequent ac!on on the same claim or cause of ac!on. In the present case, claim
preclusion is not applicable because Jessie’s claim for damages was a different cause of
ac!on from his loss of services and consor!um claim. However, issue preclusion is
applicable as some facts and issues in the first case would be retried in this subsequent
ac!on between the two par!es. Issue preclusion allows the judgment in the prior ac!on
to operate as an estoppel as to those facts or ques!ons actually li!gated and
determined in the prior ac!on. In Jessie’s previous case, the jury verdicts established
that Illinois was negligent and that its negligence was the cause of Bertha’s injuries and
that if Jessie sustained any loss of services and consor!um, it was proximately caused
by Illinois’s negligence. However, the jury denied awarding compensable damages to
Jessie. In order for the jury to have returned a verdict against Jessie, it had to have
decided either that Jessie sustained no injuries or that his injuries were proximately
caused by his own negligence. Illinois contends that the jury’s verdict must have been
based upon a finding of contributory negligence because Jessie’s evidence as to his loss
of services and consor!um was uncontroverted. However, the verdict against Jessie
could have meant that he simply failed to prove compensable damages. Issue preclusion
only applies when the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the
par!cular ma#er brought in ques!on. The court must look at the complete record to
ascertain the ques!on in issue. Here, Illinois has not demonstrated that the verdict
against Jessie in the prior ac!on could not have been rendered without deciding that
Jessie was contributorily negligent. Therefore, the grant of par!al summary judgment
estopping the railroad from denying its negligence is affirmed.