Gomes v. Tyau
| Decision Date | 13 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 5793,5793 |
| Citation | 57 Haw. 163,552 P.2d 640 |
| Parties | Don Anthony GOMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven TYAU, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Collateral estoppel is an aspect of res judicata which precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue which was previously determined in a prior suit on a different claim between the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself raised and litigated the fact or issue.
2. Where the issue of whether certain acts committed by employees were tortious was raised by and resolved against a plaintiff in a previous action against the employer, the same plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating that same issue in a second action brought against an employee.
Arthur K. Trask, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.
Edmund L. Lee, Jr., Deputy Corp. Counsel, Honolulu (Barry Chung, Corp. Counsel, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and KOBAYASHI, OGATA, MENOR and KIDWELL, JJ.
This is an appeal from the decision and order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 602-5 (Supp.1975) and § 641-1 (Supp.1975). We affirm.
On April 16, 1974, plaintiff, Don Anthony Gomes (hereinafter referred to as appellant) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court alleging that on December 4, 1973, while he was incarcerated by the Honolulu Police Department, defendant, Steven Tyau (hereinafter referred to as appellee), a licensed physician, administered to appellant a penile wash 1 to determine whether there was any specimen of spermatozoa. The complaint alleges that the penile wash was administered over the objection of appellant and 'without a warrant of search and seizure and in professional misconduct and gross carelessness of the rights of (appellant), who was not the patient of (appellee).' The complaint characterizes appellee as 'assaulting and battering' the appellant.
On April 26, 1974, appellee filed his answer admitting the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he and appellant are residents of Honolulu, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and that he is a licensed physician but denying, and therefore putting in issue, all other allegations contained in the complaint. The answer further alleged a number of affirmative defenses.
On July 26, 1974, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on four of the grounds asserted as affirmative defenses in his answer. The grounds were:
'I. Plaintiff has brought a second cause of action based upon identical factual circumstances determined in a prior adjudicated case, and has thereby violated the rule against splitting a cause of action.
II. Under the doctrine of res judicata plaintiff is barred from relitigating a cause of action which has already been determined.
III. Plaintiff is estopped from pursuing the within cause of action under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
IV. Under the doctrine of election of remedies Plaintiff is, by virtue of the existing judgment in favor of the principal, City and County of Honolulu, precluded from instituting a second action based on the same acts, against the named Defendant who is a servant and employee of the City and County of Honolulu.'
This motion was based on the record and file in this case, the record and file contained in Don Anothony Gomes, et al., v. City and County of Honolulu, (Civil No. 40923) and the memorandum of authorities attached to the motion.
The record and file before the court prior to the motion for summary judgment consisted only of the complaint and summons, the return of service and the answer. As outlined above, appellee in his pleadings disputed nearly all the facts alleged in the complaint. In support of his motion for summary judgment, appellee attached four exhibits to his memorandum of points and authorities. These exhibits purport to be copies of a complaint and summons in a case styled 'Manuel Gomes, Agatha Miller Gomes, Don Anthony Gomes and Allen Dennis Gomes vs. City and County of Honolulu', Civ. No. 40923, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, and copies of portions of the transcript of certain of the proceedings in Civ. No. 40923.
These copies disclose the following facts. The complaint in the prior action alleged that on December 3 and 4, 1973, the City and County of Honolulu violated the civil and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in that case. Of particular relevance to the case before us, the complaint alleged that the City and County falsely arrested appellant, committed 'various acts of assault and battery' upon him, falsely arrested him, falsely imprisoned him and falsely charged him with rape in the first degree. The City and County allegedly violated appellant's rights through the acts of 'members of the Honolulu Police Department, in the course of their employment as policemen.' At trial on that complaint, however, appellant also called as a witness appellee who testified that as an employee of the City and County Health Department he had administered a penile wash to appellant at the direction of certain police officers. In that prior trial, appellant's attorney took the witness stand and testified that he had witnessed the administration of the penile wash and, on behalf of appellant, had objected to the same. Appellant himself testified that he had willingly gone with the police to see appellee. It is clear, therefore, that the incident alleged which is the subject of the complaint in the instant case was placed in issue before the jury in the prior action as one of the alleged grounds of liability of the City and County of Honolulu. Although a copy of the verdict or judgment was not one of the exhibits attached to the motion for summary judgment, the fact that the jury resolved the issues in the former case against appellant is apparent from exhibit D, which is a copy of the transcript of the hearing on appellant's motion for new trial in that case.
In his response appellant based his opposition to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conley v. Spillers
...Gerrard v. Larsen, 517 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir.1975); Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State, 114 Ariz. 480, 562 P.2d 360 (1977); Gomes v. Tyau, 57 Haw. 163, 552 P.2d 640 (1976); Hunter v. City of Des Moines, The attempt to assert a judgment against a person who is not a party to the original action c......
-
Santos v. State, Dept. of Transp., Kauai Div.
...of claim and defense which might have been litigated in the first action but were not litigated or decided. Gomes v. Tyau, 57 Haw. 163, 167-68, 552 P.2d 640, 643 (1976); Morneau v. Stark Enterprises, Ltd., 56 Haw. 420, 422-23, 539 P.2d 472, 475 (1975); Ellis v. Crockett, 51 Haw. 45, 55, 451......
-
Silver v. Queen's Hospital
...same plaintiff was collaterally estopped from relitigating that issue in a subsequent suit brought against the employee. Gomes v. Tyau, 57 Haw. 163, 552 P.2d 640 (1976). See also Ellis v. Crockett, On the record before us, we are satisfied that the doctrine of res judicata was properly appl......
-
Aircall of Hawaii, Inc. v. Home Properties, Inc.
...See Santos v. State, 64 Haw. 648, 646 P.2d 962 (1982); Silver v. Queen's Hospital, 63 Haw. 430, 629 P.2d 1116 (1981); Gomes v. Tyau, 57 Haw. 163, 552 P.2d 640 (1976); Morneau v. Stark Enterprises, Ltd., 56 Haw. 420, 539 P.2d 472 (1975). However, the imposition of issue preclusion where appe......