A plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against a driver in State A, and a final judgment was entered in the defendant’s favor after a trial on the merits. The plaintiff later filed a second lawsuit against the driver in State B, alleging the same conduct but on a different theory of liability, this time arguing strict liability. Which doctrine is most likely to bar the plaintiff's second lawsuit in State B?
The doctrine of claim preclusion (also known as res judicata) prevents a party from pursuing subsequent litigation based on the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior lawsuit, provided three requirements are met: (1) a valid, final judgment on the merits was rendered in the first case, (2) the parties in both lawsuits are the same or in privity, and (3) the claims could have been brought in the prior action. In this scenario, claim preclusion applies because the second lawsuit arises from the same underlying conduct (the car accident) and could have been addressed in the original negligence case. Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), on the other hand, applies only to specific issues that were actually litigated and decided in the prior lawsuit. While both doctrines are related, claim preclusion bars the entire claim, not just individual issues. The other answers misapply these rules.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does claim preclusion entail, and how does it differ from issue preclusion?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the three requirements needed for claim preclusion to apply?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a plaintiff ever bring a new lawsuit with a different legal theory after a final judgment has been rendered?