Hankins v. District Court of Jackson County

• Citation: 424 P.2d 26
• Decision Date: 31 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 42327,42327
• Parties: Henry Garland HANKINS, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, and Honorable Weldon Ferris, Judge of said Court, Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Page 26

424 P.2d 26

1967 OK 28

Henry Garland HANKINS, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, and

Honorable Weldon Ferris, Judge of said Court, Respondents.

No. 42327.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 31, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where the issues of negligence and proximate cause were submitted to and determined by a jury which returned its verdict in favor of the defendant, and the trial court's order sustaining plaintiff's motion for new trial has been preserved for review by this court upon the allegations that such action was error, a companion case, in the trial court, in which the same issues will necessarily be determined, shall be held in abeyance pending the final disposition of the appeal in the first action upon the ground that if this court should determine that the trial court erred and it should have rendered judgment for the defendant upon the verdict, then the same issues determined by the jury shall not be subject to re-litigation in the second suit under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Application to assume original jurisdiction and petition to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against the respondent judge. Writ granted.

Harry R. Palmer, Jr., Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Robert B. Harbison, Altus, for respondents.

LAVENDER, Justice.

Petitioner in this original action seeks the invocation of the general superintending control of this court over the trial courts of Oklahoma, and in particular petitioner seeks to prohibit the Honorable Weldon Ferris, Judge of the District Court of Jackson County, Oklahoma from proceeding to the trial or other disposition of one certain cause now pending in said court. Petitioner has alleged the following facts and circumstances, all of which have been admitted by the respondent:

That on or about November 15, 1965, H. Brinkman, as Executor of the Estate of Eva Brinkman, deceased, and H. Brinkman, individually, filed consecutive actions in the District Court of Jackson County, State of Oklahoma, the former action bearing case number 12,565, the latter action numbered 12,566; that case number 12,565 was the action of H. Brinkman as the executor of his wife's estate and prayed for the medical and funeral bills and conscious pain and suffering of Mrs. Eva Brinkman, the decedent. The relief prayed for in the petition in case number 12,566 was for the injuries of the plaintiff H. Brinkman, consisting of pain and suffering, permanent disability, property damage and the loss of services of Eva Brinkman. That the allegations of negligence on the part of the defendant and that said negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and resulting injuries and damages were identical in both case number 12,565 and 12,566. That the defendant, Henry Garland Hankins, who is the petitioner herein, moved to consolidate both cases 12,565 and 12,566 for trial before a jury prior to the trial of 12,565, but that said motion was, by the trial court, overruled, and upon the plaintiff electing to try 12,565, case number 12,566 was stricken from the jury docket. That thereafter on August 17, 1966 case number 12,565, H. Brinkman, Executor of the Estate of Eva Brinkman, deceased, Plaintiff, vs. this petitioner, Henry Garland Hankins, Defendant, was tried to a jury in the said district court of Jackson County, Oklahoma; that the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. That the plaintiff thereafter filed his motion for new trial which came on for hearing before the honorable district judge and was sustained. To this ruling of the trial court, the defendant duly excepted and subsequently filed his petition in error in this court to which was attached a casemade. That this appeal was assigned number 42,253 and is now pending in this court.

That further the admitted facts are that on January 3, 1967, the respondent trial judge set case number 12,566, H. Brinkman, Plaintiff vs. the petitioner on the docket for pre-trial of the matter. That upon this occasion petitioner presented to the said trial court a motion to strike the case from the trial assignment and hold the same in abeyance upon the grounds as here alleged, that because the issues of negligence and proximate cause were and are the same in each case it would be in effect a 're-litigation of the same given issues necessary to the determination made in the former trial' to permit the trial of case number 12,566, and that during the pendency of the appeal of case number 12,565 to this court the former case should be held in abeyance, and if it should be determined that the trial court committed error in sustaining the plaintiff's motion for new trial and that the court should have entered judgment in favor of the defendant upon the verdict of the jury, then the issues submitted to and determined by the verdict of the jury, namely, the negligence of the defendant and whether the same was the proximate cause of the complained of injuries, would be determinative of the same issues in case number 12,566. This motion by the defendant was denied by the respondent district judge who has set case number 12,566 for trial before a jury on the 17th day of January, 1967, and unless said judge of said court be otherwise restrained or prohibited, said case will be tried on that date and a judgment will be rendered.

Based upon the above facts and circumstances, the defendant in the case below has filed this original action asking that this court, in the exercise of its constitutional power of general supervision over trial courts, issue its writ prohibiting any further proceedings in the case now pending in the trial court until the further order of this court or until the final disposition of the appeal in case number 12,565, now pending in this court.

Thus the petitioner is urging the theory of estoppel by judgment, as that theory has been exemplified in the past decisions of this court. Petitioner places heavy reliance upon the case of Lewis v. Aubrey, Okl., 404 P.2d 1005, and urges that the same is controlling here. In that case a verdict and judgment for damages was obtained in one district court by the owner of one of two motor vehicles involved in a collision against the owner and driver of the other vehicle, and while this case was on appeal to this court the judgment debtor was seeking in a separate action in another district court, but upon the same issues of negligence and proximate cause, to obtain a judgment for damages against the judgment creditor in the first case. We held, in prohibiting further proceedings in the second case until the first appeal had been determined:

'Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a judgment, whether in favor of the plaintiff or of the defendant, is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties on a different claim, as to issues raised in the subsequent action which were actually litigated and determined in the prior action; the test in each case is whether a given issue was necessary to the determination made in the former trial.'

This court, while noting that under the past decisions of this court (citing cases) see page 1008, 404 P.2d, the judgment of the district court had not become final because the matter was on appeal to this court, nevertheless stated, '* * * under the circumstances of the situation herein described, the ends of justice and 'the public policy of avoiding repetitious litigation' (Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. (...