185 Conn. App. 656
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Smith fell from a retaining wall on Sept. 17, 2011, allegedly sustaining injuries; no fence was present.
- Smith originally sued in Smith v. Redding (Smith I), alleging public nuisance against BL Companies, Inc. (BL Co.); the trial court granted BL Co. summary judgment.
- Smith later filed a new action (this case) asserting professional negligence claims against BL Co. and James Fielding (a landscape architect/project manager alleged to be BL Co.’s agent).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment here, arguing Smith’s claims are barred by res judicata because they arise from the same operative facts litigated (or that could have been litigated) in Smith I.
- The trial court considered whether the four elements of claim preclusion were met and whether reservation or other policies defeated preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith's professional negligence claims are barred by res judicata | The negligence claim is a distinct legal theory; wrongdoing wasn’t decided in Smith I; preclusion would be unfair and prejudicial | Smith I resulted in a merits judgment; negligence could have been raised there and is based on the same operative facts | Barred: res judicata applies because same transaction/operative facts and prior final judgment on merits |
| Whether Fielding is precluded though not named in Smith I | Fielding argues separate liability; plaintiff emphasizes distinct issues and experts | Defendants assert Fielding is in privity with BL Co. and thus bound by prior judgment | Barred: Fielding is in privity with BL Co., so preclusion applies |
| Whether plaintiff had adequate opportunity to litigate the negligence claim in Smith I | Plaintiff says different evidence/expert needs and bifurcation risk would confuse a jury, so opportunity was inadequate | Defendants note plaintiff could have amended pleadings, and trial court explicitly said time for negligence claim had not expired | Barred: plaintiff had opportunity to litigate or amend in Smith I; adequate opportunity element satisfied |
| Whether the trial court’s language in Smith I reserved plaintiff’s right to bring negligence claim | Plaintiff relies on trial court comment that time to assert negligence had not expired as a reservation | Defendants and court read the comment as noting opportunity, not an express reservation to permit a second suit | Barred: no explicit reservation of right to a second action; reservation exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Joe’s Pizza, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 236 Conn. 863 (Conn. 1996) (summary judgment is appropriate vehicle for raising res judicata)
- Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594 (Conn. 2007) (res judicata bars claims that might have been raised; bifurcation and amendment considerations)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24 (Conn. 1997) (claim preclusion bars subsequent claims based on same operative facts)
- Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, 320 Conn. 146 (Conn. 2016) (transactional test and limits of preclusion where parties differ or evidence does not substantially overlap)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (Conn. 2010) (adequate opportunity to litigate requirement for res judicata)