Doss v. Dixon, 131 So. 3d 1265

On Jan. 18, 2009, 17 customers ate at a Pizza Hut in Greenwood, MS and soon experienced gastrointestinal symptoms, seeking medical treatment.
Multiple prior lawsuits were filed against NPC International (the Pizza Hut owner) and related corporate defendants in federal court; the individual employees were not defendants in those suits.
The federal district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding plaintiffs failed to show the food was unfit or a causal link to food poisoning; the Fifth Circuit affirmed in Feb. 2012.
Plaintiffs then sued three individual employees in Leflore County Circuit Court (Mar. 14, 2011), alleging negligent preparation/serving and related harms.
The employees moved to dismiss; the circuit court converted the motion to a summary-judgment disposition and dismissed the suit on May 22, 2012, invoking res judicata, collateral estoppel, and stare decisis; plaintiffs appealed.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding res judicata applied because the employees were in privity with NPC International and the claims/subject matter were identical to the federal suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the suit against employees	Plaintiffs: employees’ individual negligence was not adjudicated previously; identities of parties differ so res judicata doesn't apply	Employees: prior federal judgment on essentially identical negligence claims against employer (respondeat superior) bars re‑litigation against employees; employees are in privity with NPC	Held: Res judicata applies — subject matter and cause of action are identical; employees are in privity with NPC (vicarious liability basis), so claim is barred
Whether stare decisis prevents dismissal because factual disputes exist	Plaintiffs: disputed material facts make dismissal inappropriate; stare decisis was misapplied	Employees: prior final judgment governs; precedent supports preclusion	Held: Court did not reach merits — unnecessary because res judicata disposed of the case
Whether collateral estoppel bars the suit	Plaintiffs: employee liability issues were not actually litigated against employees, so collateral estoppel doesn't apply	Employees: prior adjudication on same factual issues precludes re‑litigation	Held: Court did not separately decide collateral estoppel because res judicata was dispositive

Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins. Inc., 891 So.2d 224 (Miss. 2005) (sets four-identity test for res judicata)
Little v. V & G Welding Supply Inc., 704 So.2d 1336 (Miss. 1997) (discusses privity and claim preclusion principles)
Black v. City of Tupelo, 853 So.2d 1221 (Miss. 2003) (holds employer-employee vicarious-liability relationship can satisfy privity)
EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Carmichael, 17 So.3d 1087 (Miss. 2009) (requires prior judgment be final and on the merits for res judicata)
Moorman v. Crocker, 38 So.3d 662 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (standards distinguishing Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 review)
Beene v. Ferguson Auto. Inc., 37 So.3d 695 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (addresses final-judgment requirement for preclusion)
Doss v. NPC Int’l Inc., [citation="460 F. App'x 362"] (5th Cir. 2012) (appellate affirmance of summary judgment for NPC on plaintiffs’ food-poisoning claims)