| Venue: | Ind. Ct. App. |
| Facts: | The Parkses are injured when a train hits their car. Jessie was driving. |
| Posture: | Suit against the RR: Bertha wants compensation for injuries, Jessie wants damages for loss of Bertha's services and consortium. Bertha gets $30K, Jessie loses. Now Jessie files a new suit for his injuries. On the RR's motion for summary judgment, the trial court says the prior action didn't bar Jessie's claim, and also didn't preclude Jessie on the issue of contributory negligence. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Were these facts and questions actually litigated and determined in the prior case? |
| Holding: | No. The trial court got it right. |
| Rule: | To protect the verdict of a prior judgement by preventing the possibility of opposite results, in a new case turning on the same set of facts, the prior judgments acts as an estoppel as to those facts actually litigated and dertmined in it. |
| Reasoning: | Basically, the railroad had to show that the prior judgment couldn't have been rendered withouth deciding that Jessie was contributorily negligent. |
| Dicta: | |