He didn't "send" you anything - he posted it.What's your point sending me an old link of me asking a question... If you don't have somthing smart to say just click next thread
that is just one reason you are urged to not post multiple threads on the same issue. Personally, given the lack of info and the fact I was not going to chase your other thread(s) for information, I simply do go on to the next thread.You right I came off wrong, if he would of gave the link an introduction i wouldn't job to conclusion... I am sorry to those who got offended and mad...
Perhaps it is because the attorneys for the insurance company understand “issue preclusion” and “collateral estoppel” and avoidance of multiple litigation as inherent in the principle of RES JUDICATA and your attorney does not?My accident was hit and run, in the beginning his insurance denied their driver was at the seen... I filed for small claim court against the driver damages for my vehicle since it was under 6000... The driver never showed up I won the case and his insurance paid for the damages 3500. Now, by them paying, their are admitting that thier are at fault. My lawyer and I pursuing for bodily injuries but thier adjuster never respond back, completely ignores us... Whats the next step?
Sorry, but I see no Res Judicata here. The claim for pain and suffering is much different than a claim for property damages. The OP most likely has a claim for pain and suffering that is over small claims limits. A claim for property damages was all that was litigated in small claims court. If the OP would have litigated for compensation concerning pain and suffering as well, then it would have been considered Res Judicata to file any actions in Superior Court concerning the same issues already decided in the small claims area.Perhaps it is because the attorneys for the insurance company understand “issue preclusion” and “collateral estoppel” and avoidance of multiple litigation as inherent in the principle of RES JUDICATA and your attorney does not?
RES JUDICATA is Latin for "the thing has been decided"
It is a rule of law that holds that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.
Please make note of the phrase “that could have been litigated in that suit”. Because, to my limited knowledge of New York law, there is nothing that would have prevented you from joining your claim for personal injuries in the same small claims action in which you recovered a judgment compensating your for the property damage.
And if that is so, then seemingly the above mentioned principles preclude you from bringing another lawsuit against the same defendant involving the same vehicle accident.
If it isn’t so, then have your attorney explain why.
OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!Sorry, but I see no Res Judicata here. The claim for pain and suffering is much different than a claim for property damages. The OP most likely has a claim for pain and suffering that is over small claims limits. A claim for property damages was all that was litigated in small claims court. If the OP would have litigated for compensation concerning pain and suffering as well, then it would have been considered Res Judicata to file any actions in Superior Court concerning the same issues already decided in the small claims area.
You are contruing Res Judicata way too liberally! If property damage is compensated via small claims judgment, then it can't be re-litigated, period via Res Judicata! If the defendant (the one at fault) should file suit seeking compensation for property damages, it would be denied because the defendant is at fault, not because of Res Judicata! You're right about one thng, your knowledge of Res Judicata is limited.OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
Any fool would know that a cause of action for property damage involves some elements of proof differing from those related to a cause of action for injuries to the person.
But when the two “different”, but related claims or causes of action are based on identical factual circumstances - such as here a single tortuous act – and involve the same tortfeasor, then BOTH CLAIMS MUST BE JOINED AND PROSECUTED IN SAME LAW SUIT! Period!
____________________
Now if you have any recognized case law out of New York that under the same circumstances at hand rejects the principal of re judicata, which (again) is universally defined as follows:
"A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit,"
And by rejecting I mean case law that allows a person that has suffered both (1) property loss and (2) personal injuries as a result of a single tortuous act to bifurcate claims (1) and (2) and have them litigated in two separate lawsuits against the same defendant or defendants . . .
Then let those authorities speak for your argument, which I personally deem to be unschooled and legally unsound.
________________________
The only question I see is whether or not the OP was somehow precluded from asserting both claims in one small claims filing. Or perhaps, a New York small claims judgment is not afforded the necessary dignity to qualify as a final judgment on the merits. (Which would seem inexplicable.)
Such principles or res judicata, collateral estoppel, the “entire controversy doctrine”, are not solely designed to bring an end to litigation but as public policy to help unburden the court system, and to protect litigants against increased costs and the vexation of multiple lawsuits.
A policy which seems to have escaped your understanding.
One final comment.
I will guarantee you that if the defendant in the small claims case that suffered a judgment favoring the OP and compensating him for the damage to his vehicle, were to refile a lawsuit against the OP seeking to have his property damage compensated, the OP would be screaming RES JUDICATA! And the same if that defendant were to sue the OP for personal injuries which he could have cross claimed in small claims.
You are contruing Res Judicata way too liberally! If property damage is compensated via small claims judgment, then it can't be re-litigated, period via Res Judicata! If the defendant (the one at fault) should file suit seeking compensation for property damages, it would be denied because the defendant is at fault, not because of Res Judicata! You're right about one thng, your knowledge of Res Judicata is limited.