Smittle v. Eberle
| Decision Date | 31 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38790,38790 |
| Citation | 353 P.2d 121 |
| Parties | Robert SMITTLE, Plaintiff in Error, v. Glen EBERLE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Before a judgment will operate as an estoppel, there must be an identity of parties, as well as of subject-matter; and the parties between whom the judgment is claimed to be an estoppel must have been parties to the action in which it was rendered in the same capacities and in the same antagonistic relation, or in privity with the parties to such former action.
2. A parent who, as next friend of his minor child, prosecutes a personal-injury action in behalf of said child is not regarded as a party or a privy thereto and an adverse judgment rendered therein does not estop parent from maintaining an action to recover consequential damages attributable to injuries sustained by the child where said damages were not recoverable in action prosecuted in behalf of child.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County; C. E. Allen, Judge.
Action by plaintiff to recover consequential damages (medical expense and loss of services) attributable to injuries sustained by plaintiff's son in automobile collision involving automobile operated by defendant and automobile in which son was passenger. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's action on grounds that plaintiff was estopped by judgment in defendant's favor in action prosecuted by plaintiff, as his son's next friend, against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by son in said collision. From order denying motion to dismiss and from verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Rucker, Tabor & Cox, Joseph A. Sharp, O. H. 'Pat' O'Neal, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Greer & Greer, Jefferson G. Greer, Frank A. Greer, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
Danny Eberle was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving an automobile in which Danny was a passenger and one operated by Robert Smittle.
Glen Eberle, as father and next friend of Danny, a minor, instituted action Numbered 93,081 in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, against Robert Smittle to recover damages in Danny's behalf because of Smittle's alleged negligence in causing the automobile collision.
The case, which was tried to a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment thereon in Smittle's favor. This judgment was permitted to become final.
Glen Eberle instituted the instant action in his behalf to recover damages in the amount of $10,000 against Smittle because of Smittle's alleged negligence in causing the automobile collision which resulted in Danny's injuries. Of the damages claimed, $1,181.15 was alleged to be medical and surgical expense that Glen Eberle paid because of Danny's injuries and the balance was claimed as damages for loss of Danny's services.
The instant case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in Glen Eberle's favor in the amount of $2,750 and judgment was rendered on the verdict against Smittle in said amount. From order denying Smittle's motion for new trial, he appeals.
Prior to trial of the present action, Smittle filed a 'Motion To Dismiss' in which he alleged in substance that the verdict and judgment rendered in No. 93,081 in Smittle's favor 'acts as an estoppel by judgment or verdict in the present case'; that said case involved issues identical to those involved in the instant case. (It is not contended that Glen Eberle by this action endeavors to recover damages which Danny either sought or was entitled to recover in No. 93,081.) The motion to dismiss was denied prior to trial of this action.
The only issue presented by this case in whether the verdict and judgment in No. 93,081 operated to estop Glen Eberle from maintaining the action before us. In support of his contention that such is the case, Smittle cites and relies primarily upon Garrison v. Bonham, 207 Okl. 599, 251 P.2d 790, and Wilkey v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., Okl., 322 P.2d 1058. Smittle stresses the second paragraph of the syllabus to the last cited case which reads as follows:
'Where, on the basis of the record in the action, whose verdict and judgment is claimed to operate as such estoppel, there can be no question but that same determined that, in the manner in which the accident occurred, the conduct of the defendants was not responsible therefor, said verdict and judgment bars plaintiff's recovery in the other actions, on the basis of defendants' same alleged torts, or acts of negligence.'
In view of the fact that in the instant case Glen Eberle relies upon the same alleged acts of negligence on Smittle's part as were relied upon by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. Narick
...Carrier, 390 A.2d 1048 (Me.1978); Whitehead v. General Tel. Co., 20 Ohio St.2d 108, 49 O.O.2d 435, 254 N.E.2d 10 (1969); Smittle v. Eberle, 353 P.2d 121 (Okla.1960); Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431, 351 S.E.2d 164 (1986); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 376 S.E.2d 787 (1989). Thu......
-
Cary by and through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
...Oklahoma pronouncements seem encrusted with similarly imprecise language as that in category 1, supra. (a) In Smittle v. Eberle, Okl., 353 P.2d 121, 123 (1960), the court states that a parent, who, as next friend, successfully prosecutes a tort action in behalf of his child "is not regarded......
-
Casto v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co., ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA
...exception to the rule against splitting causes of action arising from a single tort, Casto cites his sole Oklahoma case, Smittle v. Eberle, Okl., 353 P.2d 121 (1960). But in that case, there were two plaintiffs, the court recognizing that the parents sued as "next friends" of their children......
-
McIntosh v. Limestone Nat. Bank
...rendered in the same capacities and in the same antagonistic relation, or in privity with parties to the former action. Smittle v. Eberle, 353 P.2d 121 (Okla.1960). See Greco v. Foster, 268 P.2d 215 (Okla.1954). Privity here denotes someone claiming by or through a party to the former actio......