Boring v. Miller
| Citation | 215 Tenn. 394,386 S.W.2d 521,19 McCanless 394 |
| Parties | Betty BORING and Steven Dale Boring, b/n/f Betty Boring, v. James L. Miller and Gary D. Lawson. 19 McCanless 394, 215 Tenn. 394, 386 S.W.2d 521 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1965 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Hubert D. Patty, Maryville, for Betty Boring and Steven Dale Boring.
D. K. Thomas, Maryville, for James L. Miller and Gary D. Lawson.
Steven Dale Boring, a minor, by next friend, sued the defendants, James L. Miller, Gary D. Lawson, and Horace Boring, for $25,000.00 damages resulting from a collision between an automobile owned and driven by Horace Boring and an automobile owned by Miller and driven by Gary D. Lawson. Betty Boring, the mother of Steven Boring, by separate counts, sued for $5,000.00 damages for loss of services of the child and medical expenses.
It appears from the declaration that Horace Boring is the father of the child, but that Betty Boring has the exclusive custody. It further appears that Steven Boring was a passenger in the automobile operated by his father.
Defendants Miller and Lawson filed a plea to the declaration, setting up a final judgment of the General Sessions Court of Blount County in favor of James L. Miller and against Horace Boring for $400.00 damages to Miller's car, and averring that the issue of negligence had been finally adjudicated, estopping the plaintiffs from a recovery. A general denial was also plead. A copy of the judgment of the General Sessions Court was filed.
The plaintiffs moved the court to strike the plea of prior adjudication on the ground, among others, that the parties and causes of action were not the same. The trial court, W. Wayne Oliver, Judge, denied the motion, sustained the plea as a matter of law, and dismissed the action as to defendants Miller and Lawson. Plaintiffs took a non-suit as to Horace Boring, and appealed in error directly to this Court.
The one question necessary for the determination of this case is whether the General Sessions judgment against Horace Boring was conclusive of the issues of negligence in this suit by Betty and Steven Boring.
A judgment on the merits exhausts the cause of action on which it was based, and is an absolute bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties and their privies upon the same cause of action. Cheatham v. Allen, 192 Tenn. 535, 539, 241 S.W.2d 559 (1951); Polsky v. Atkins, 197 Tenn. 201, 206, 270 S.W.2d 497 (1954); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 198 Tenn. 665, 667-668, 281 S.W.2d 666 (1954); National Cordova Corp. v. City of Memphis, 213 Tenn. ----, 380 S.W.2d 793, 796.
The former judgment also estops the parties and their privies in any other cause of action to relitigate any matter which was actually determined in the prior suit. Cantrell v. Burnett & Henderson Co., 187 Tenn. 552, 556-557, 216 S.W.2d 307 (1948).
However, it is well settled that only parties to the suit and those in privity with them are bound by the judgment. Stephens v. Jack, 11 Tenn. (3 Yerg.) 403 (1832); Cope v. Payne, 111 Tenn. 128, 130, 76 S.W. 820 (1903); Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 112, 285 S.W.2d 108 (1955). In the case at bar neither the parties nor the causes of action are the same as those in the prior suit; nor does either of the plaintiffs in this suit stand in privity with any party in the prior suit.
The cause of action involved in the prior adjudication was for property damages to Miller's car. The causes of action involved in the present controversy are (1) for the minor's personal injuries and (2) for the mother's loss of services of the child and medical expenses incurred.
It is the rule in this State that the cause of action of the minor for personal injuries and the cause of action for loss of services by the parent are separate and distinct, and a recovery or failure to recover in an action by one does not estop the other from prosecuting his cause of action against the defendant. Guy v. Lumber Co., 93 Tenn. 213, S.W. 972 (1893); Forsyth v. Central Mfg. Co., 103 Tenn. 497, 53 S.W. 731 (1899). Therefore, the judgment for Miller against Boring, the father, in the prior suit could in no way bind the child or affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 88-112
...815 (Tex.Civ.App.1975) ("[p]rivity is not established by the mere common interest of persons in the same question"); Boring v. Miller, 215 Tenn. 394, 386 S.W.2d 521 (1965) (an interest in proving the same set of facts involved in prior litigation is insufficient to establish privity); Ruffi......
-
Falster v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...in the Prudential case had that judgment been favorable to the plaintiff. Neither party is bound by that judgment. See Boring v. Miller et al., Tenn., 386 S.W.2d 521 (Blount Law, opinion filed contemporaneously with this opinion) and the cases cited The fifth and last assignment of error in......
-
Shelley v. Gipson
...Tennessee and there are only a few decisions shedding light on the matter from other jurisdictions. Both briefs refer to Boring v. Miller, Tenn., 386 S.W.2d 521 (1965), which states the A judgment on the merits exhausts the cause of action on which it was based, and is an absolute bar to a ......
-
Ralph v. Scruggs Farm Supply LLC
...of the case. “To be in privity with a party to litigation, the person must have had an interest in the action.” Boring v. Miller, 215 Tenn. 394, 386 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1965) (citations omitted); see also Cotton v. Underwood, 223 Tenn. 122, 442 S.W.2d 632, 634–35 (1969) (stating that “privies ......