Preclusion / Resjudicata --- is always a good defence for a fresh case when matter has already been decided... accident case normally can not be decided without looking into the role of driver at first instance...
Why would claim preclusion not be applicable in the case of the plaintiff suing the bus driver? As an employee or contractual agent of the bus company, is there not obvious privity which makes him so similar of a defendant that they are essentially the same party? For example, if the plaintiff's spouse sues the bus company after the decision in the first case, wouldn't her claim would be precluded by showing privity to the plaintiff in the first case?
Per Curiam affirm in Appellate Court for foreclosure of unclean hands by fraud, breach of contract n unconscionable. is this to be a proof of claim in bankruptcy " colloidal estoppel issue preclusion?
Can someone explain to me why OJ was able to be sued in civil court for wrongful death after being found not guilty in criminal court. I get that the family never had their “day in court” … but doesn’t this result in inconsistent verdicts or holdings??
That's a completely different topic than issue and claim preclusion. The topic you're talking about is the difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial. More specifically, it's the difference between the standards of proof in civil and criminal trials. In criminal trials, the standard of proof (how much you need to prove to win the case) is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that the jury has to be convinced that there is proof that convinces them beyond any reasonable doubt have in order to say the defendant is guilty. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard of proof in our legal system. If the jury has any shred of doubt that's reasonable that the defendant didn't commit the crime, they can't legally say that they are convinced. In other words, if the prosecution can't prove beyond any reasonable doubt all elements of the crime charged against the defendant, the verdict must be not guilty. If we were to put this into numbers, it would be like a 99.99% or even a 100% since unreasonable doubt can't be considered. In civil trials, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." The word "preponderance" here could be replaced with "majority," if that makes it easier to understand ("the majority of the evidence"). What this means is that if the jury thinks that the plaintiff (the one bringing the suit) is more likely than not (>50%) to have met their burden of proving the elements of their claim, the defendant loses. So, now you can see that in criminal cases, the prosecutor has to prove through evidence that the likelihood of the criminal defendant committing the crime being charged with is a ~100%. In a civil case, the plaintiff only has to prove the likelihood of the civil defendant having harmed/injured the plaintiff is more than 50%. So, you can be found not guilty of the crime of battery because the jury in your criminal trial was not convinced that there was a ~100% likelihood that it really was you who punched the guy (or any other element of the *crime* of battery), but you could be found liable in a separate civil trial because the civil jury was convinced (even with the same exact evidence) that there was a a 60% likelihood that it was really you who punched the guy (along with every other element of the *tort* of battery). This is likely what happened in the OJ case. Also, the elements for the crime of murder is DIFFERENT than the elements to satisfy a civil claim of wrongful death. So, there's also the possibility that different/more/less evidence may be used in the OJ civil trial for the wrongful death claim. As to your worry about inconsistent verdicts and holdings, that is the whole purpose of the two types of law. Imagine if I punched you in the face right in front of a police officer and that I was found guilty of battery and went to jail. But you fell after I punched you and suffered a broken bone. Well, my being in jail doesn't do anything for you. You have medical bills to pay. I'm in jail because I'm found criminally liable, but the injury you suffered as a result of my punch is unresolved. That's why you would personally bring a civil lawsuit against me for the tort of battery. And since I was found guilty on a standard of ~100% likelihood, meeting the >50% likelihood would be nearly automatic. Finally, what this video and the topic of issue and claim preclusion is talking about is ONLY CIVIL TRIALS. The concept of double jeopardy would come into play if the government tries to try you for the same crime again. So, there IS a protection against inconsistent or repeated verdicts in both civil and criminal trials. It's just that they are completely separate from one another. Wow, I wrote an entire essay. Jesus christ.
What if one of several claims in a lawsuit contains an FTCA claim? In Brownback v King Clarence Thomas wrote that *even a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction* is a judgement on the merits that triggers the "judgement bar" against any action against the employee on the same event. Does this mean that you have to appeal the FTCA claim in order to keep your lawsuit alive even if your attorney thinks he can't successfully prove it? Ugh. Thomas extended and supercharged "the judgement bar" to apply to actions under Section 2675(b) even though there was no action under 1346(b). I read his opinion and like Chewbacca living on Endor, it makes no sense!
