Also known as: reg jud · res judicata · res jud
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine providing that the effect of a final judgment for or against one of several tortfeasors on claims against others liable for the same harm is governed by ordinary principles of claim and issue preclusion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dana lost her negligence suit against Helping Hands after a full trial on causation and fault for the collapsed stage. She then sued StageCo Rentals and Victor for the identical injuries from the same event. The court applied res judicata principles to the prior defense judgment and dismissed the new action.
Dana recovered full damages from QuickStop Auto after proving the brake failure caused her injuries. She later sued the manufacturer and distributor for the same accident. The court held that the effect of the first judgment on these new claims is determined by standard res judicata rules rather than any automatic bar or extension.
Investors obtained final judgments against a farm under federal securities law. Congress later passed a statute that would have revived dismissed claims. The court ruled that the new statute could not abrogate the prior judgments because res judicata protects their finality from legislative override.
A slave owner obtained a judgment establishing ownership. Years later a descendant sought to relitigate the same status in a new forum. The court held the earlier judgment conclusive under res judicata and refused to reopen the settled ownership question.
A Cuban court entered a judgment nationalizing a sugar company. The original owners later sued in the United States for the same assets. The court applied res judicata principles to give the foreign judgment conclusive effect on the ownership issues actually litigated.
A school board fired a teacher without any opportunity to respond. The teacher sued claiming the termination violated due process. The court held that res judicata could not bar the claim because the prior administrative action lacked the procedural fairness required for preclusive effect.
No. The effect of the judgment on claims against other potential tortfeasors is determined by ordinary principles of res judicata rather than any special tort rule. A defense verdict on negligence and causation can preclude relitigation of those issues even against new defendants when the harm is identical.
Supporting sources
The prior judgment controls when the same harm and the same dispositive issues such as negligence or causation were fully litigated and decided. Standard claim and issue preclusion rules then determine whether the second suit may proceed.
Supporting sources
…does not deny or limit litigants' rights to a federal forum "because state administrative agency determinations do not create res judicata or collateral estoppel effects. The exhaustion of state administrative remedies postpones rather than precludes the assertion of federal jurisdiction." Comment, Exhaustion of State…