Issue Preclusion: An Issue "Actually Litigated and Determined"

Case: Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks (1979, IN) [CB 688-691]
181 Ind. App. 141, 390 N.E.2d 1078

Facts:
○ 1st Action: The Parks’ car collided with an Illinois Central train. The
Parks sued the railroad for personal injuries. Bertha sought damages for her
injuries, and Jessie sought damages for loss of Bertha's services and consortium.
Bertha recovered $30k, but Illinois won on Jessie's claim.
○ 2nd Action: Then Jessie sued separately for personal injuries. Illinois
moved for summary judgment, on the basis that Jessie's claim was barred by claim
preclusion. Trial court said claim was not barred by claim preclusion, and also
that Jessie was not precluded on the issue of contributory negligence. Illinois
took an interlocutory appeal.

Issue: Whether the 2nd claim is barred by claim preclusion . - No, different
cause of action.

Holding: Pl not barred, and allowed to proceed with his action for personal
injuries.

Reasoning:
○ Claim preclusion
§ Claim preclusion precludes the relitigation of a cause of action for
which there has been a final judgment.
§ The court says that claim preclusion doesn’t apply because the
railroad admits that the new suit is based on a distinct cause of action from the
first suit.
○ Issue Preclusion
§ Issue preclusion applies if the causes of action are not the same
but some of the issues raised in the second suit were “actually litigated and
determined” in the first suit.
§ The court says that issue preclusion may apply to the matter of
Jessie’s contributory negligence.
□ However, the court finds that the jury could have either found
for the railroad based on a finding of contributory negligence or Jessie’s failure
to meet the burden of proof.
□ Since there’s no way of knowing why the jury came to the
conclusion they did, it’s okay to try the issue over again because the court
thinks it wasn’t really “litigated and determined” with finality.
® Court declined to apply preclusion because the opacity of
the general verdict made it difficult what the first judgment had decided.

RULE: Where a judgment may have been based upon either or any of two or more
distinct facts, a party asserting that judgment as an estoppel by verdict or a
finding upon the particular fact involved in a subsequent suit must show that the
judgment was rendered based on that fact, or else the question will be open to a
new contention.

Class Notes
• Sued once for loss of consortium, then for his own claims. not the same cause of
action, not the same legal claim.
○ Claim for personal injuries is not precluded by prior suit for loss of
consortium
• RR says: necessarily if the jury gave Jessie no damages on loss of consortium
claim in Action #1, it was b/c they found him contributorily negligent. So, then
you are contributorily negligent on Jessie's personal injuries case, so there is
issue preclusion.
○ Court says no: it is possible jury decided for that reason in action #1.
But it is also possible they decided that b/c Jessie was unable to prove damages.
Since RR has burden to show issue preclusion, they cant b/c we don’t know jury's
intent.