Tucker v. Walker, 75--1607

• Decision Date: 28 July 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75--1607,75--1607
• Citation: 335 So.2d 636
• Parties: Tommy F. TUCKER and Pauline Tucker, his wife, Appellants, v. Johnny Berry WALKER, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 636

335 So.2d 636

Tommy F. TUCKER and Pauline Tucker, his wife, Appellants, v. Johnny Berry WALKER, et al., Appellees.

No. 75--1607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 28, 1976.

J. L. Skip Miller of Miller & Anderson, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Edward M. Waller, Jr. of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for Johnny Berry Walker and Ins. Co. of North America.

SCHEB, Judge.

Appellants, Tommy F. Tucker and his wife Pauline, were plaintiffs below. They sued the defendant/appellees, Johnny Berry Walker, Insurance Company of North America, Frederick J. Schmidt, and State Farm Insurance Company, alleging that on June 29, 1973, Mr. Tucker was injured while a passenger in a vehicle, owned and operated by Walker, which struck the Schmidt vehicle ahead of it. ¹

Tucker claimed damages for injuries to his head, shoulder and arm resulting from the accident with Walker, even though he had injured the same parts of his body in a later accident on July 7, 1973. Defendants denied all material allegations and affirmatively defended on the ground they were exempt from tort liability since plaintiff Tucker failed to meet the 'no-fault threshold requirements' under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Fla.Stat. Ch. 627. atAt trial, plaintiff Tucker offered evidence of medical expenses in excess of $1,000. His physicians testified that his injuries were permanent but they were unable to apportion those injuries as between the two accidents. The examining physician for the defendants testified that Tucker's disability pre-dated either accident. The defense contended that most, if not all, of the plaintiff's medical expenses were not the result of the accident caused by defendants. In special verdicts, the jury found the plaintiff Tucker did not sustain a permanent injury and did not incur medical expenses in excess of $1,000 as a result of the accident of June 29, 1973.

Plaintiffs moved for a new trial. Alternatively, they sought to dismiss without prejudice since the jury found Tucker failed to meet the threshold requirements. Both motions were denied and final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. This appeal ensued. Plaintiffs contend the trial court should have dismissed their suit without prejudice once the jury found that plaintiff failed to establish either injuries or medical expenses in excess of $1,000, as required under Fla.Stat. § 627.737. We disagree and affirm.

Once a final judgment is rendered on the merits of a cause by a court of competent jurisdiction, that judgment becomes conclusive on the questions and facts which were in issue and constitutes a bar to a subsequent suit involving the same subject matter. Thus, under the doctrine of res judicata, the parties may not relitigate matters already litigated and determined in a prior suit, Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40; Shirley v. Shirley, Fla.App.2d 1958, 100 So.2d 450. Here, the plaintiffs pled and offered evidence of the permanency of Tucker's injuries and medical expenses in excess of $1,000, resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant Walker. The jury found to the contrary. Once the jury found against the plaintiffs on these questions, the final judgment became res judicata as to those issues.

...