W
Willlyjo
Guest
You are vague and confusing at best, Latigo! We all agree (or should agree) that Res Judicata is the re-litigation of a claim that has already been decided by another court. In this case, the OP has claims against the "hit and run" driver/driver's insurance. One claim involves an injury and the other claim involves the OP's property damage.Denying the hypothetical defendant/claimant the right to seek a judgment against the OP in another tribunal for his property damage because he was found at fault in the first lawsuit WOULD NOT BE APPLYING THE PRINCIPAL OF RES JUDICATA?!
And you have the audacity to say that my understanding of the principal is limited?
I have a rule I'm going invoke. I don't debate an unarmed opponent! So toodle-oo!
The OP already told us he filed suit in small claims and won a judgment which the Insurance Company paid for (property damage done to his vehicle). The remaining claim as a result of the hit and run accident has yet to be decided. These are 2 separate claims out of one incident! Now as often happens, someone may have 2 separate claims being litigated and they may be enjoined by the court so the claims can be more conveniently litigated, but in this case, the property damage claim has already been decided! Has nothing to do with Res Judicata--at all!
As far as the Defendant (the hit and run driver who was at fault), if he wants to attempt to sue the OP/OP's Insurance for his damaged vehicle, he has the right to do so, but it would be a waste of time because everything points to him as being the person at fault, so he surely isn't going to be compensated for his damage when he was the one who caused the accident in the first place.
There is NO RES JUDICATA--because there were no claims re-litigated--period! sheesh--can't you see that?