*1 KIRCHNER, Movant, v. Michael P. RIHERD, Respondent.
John Moores, Fowler, E. Patrick Measle & Suрreme Kentucky. Court of Bell, Lexington, for movant. Taylor, Taylor, Charles A. Elam &
Nov. 1985. McConnell, Lexington, respondent. Rehearing Denied Feb. 1986.
STEPHENSON, Justice: The trial court dismissed Riherd’s com- plaint seeking damages personal inju- ries. The trial court relied the rule of law that causes of action split. shall not be Appeals The Court of reversed the trial theory court on the splitting there was no granted of a cause of action. We discre- tionary review and reverse.
Riherd sued Kirchner in circuit court for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Kirchner filed a motion to dis- miss, pleading judicata res as a result of splitting Riherd’s his cause of action and later filed motion for summary judgment. grounds Kirchner stated as for dismissal previously that Riherd had filed an action against him in the small claims division of damage the district court for property automobile, arising loss of use of an out of the same accident. The trial court entered summary judgment for Kirchner on the ground that the action in district court personal injuries. barred his claim for Appeals, reversing Court court, recognized prohi- the doctrine of action, against splitting bition a cause of distinguished but this case on its facts. Strangely enough, the Appeals Court of $1,000jurisdiction- based its decision on the court, reasoning al limit for district personal inju- that since Riherd’s claim for expenses ries and medical far exceeded the $1,000 limit, he could not have filed these claims the district court at the same ground, As further time. the Court of Appeals exprеssed opinion that the is- sue of presented. was not complaint filed a small claims alleged court. He that Kirchner district him car rental due to owed reimbursement *2 34 judgment
an accident when Kirchner hit him. At the
recovers
for an amount within
hearing,
testified
he wаs
Riherd
that
the
jurisdiction
court’s
or is denied recov-
thing
stopped in traffic and the next
he
merits,
ery by judgment
is, by
a
on the
he
if it
knew he was hit. The trial court asked
operation
precluded
judgment,
of the
from
Kirchner;
apparently
he answered
maintaining
therеafter
an action for the
that it was.
claim,
though
balance of his
even
the court
rendering
the former
no
had
au-
stage
hearing,
in
At another
the
thority
give
judgment upon
to
a
this bal-
his
testified that the accident was not
fault.
ance. See also Moore v. Gas and Electric
determining
hearing
After
Riherd and
that
530,
(1926).
Shop,
Ky.
216
One of the first cases to enunciate this
of more than one item
228,
Ky.
12
Ligon,
damage may
split
single
dоctrine is Pilcher v.
91
of
his
cause
(1891).
Ky.Law Rep.
court had him rendered duty plaintiff that it is the of a to assert on the merits. We said: resulting his entire cause of аction from justice’s being record conclusive of tort, single upon a failure to do so appellant’s fact that the claim for $50 effect, he, right renounces his to re- attorney’s fee in said was heard case damages cover other items of in subse- merits, arises, question its can quent actions. appellant larger sue for a amount in Hays Sturgill, Ky. In v. 302 193 chancery court? The answer is that (1946), we also said that one S.W.2d permit party the law will not a who has may split his cause of action and up sued for a of an entire demand to piecemeal. this is the have it tried That sue for the residue another action. exemplified rule is (Cita- This rule seems to be uniform. (Second), Judgments, Sec. 24: omitted). tions But it be said the (1) judgment ren- When a valid and final
justice’s jurisdiction court did not have extinguishes plain- appellant’s dered in an action the full amount of the claim. pursuant to the rules of The answer is that the entire cause of tiff’s claim (see 18, 19), right appellant’s merger action was the to an or bar the claim §§ fee, gаve justice’s attorney’s extinguished rights and he includes all of the bring- jurisdiction plaintiff court of that matter the defend- to remedies ing recover respect any part his action therein to or $50 ant with all service; split transaction, said and to allow him to trans- or series connected many entire cause of action into causes actions, arose. out of which the action action, and to harass the defendant (2) grouping factual constitutes What each, separate with a action on would be “transaction,” groupings con- and what travesty upon legal justice. “series,” are to be determined stitute a giving weight such con- pragmatically, plaintiff, Where a who has claim re- the facts are siderations as whether entirety which in its exсeeds in amount the motivation, time, space, origin, or brings jurisdiction, an action and lated court’s STEPHENS, C.J., form they GANT, whether a convenient STE- unit, PHENSON, WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., and whether their treatment as a concur. parties’ expecta- unit conforms or understanding
tions business or us- LEIBSON, J., sepa- dissents and files a age. dissenting opinion rate AKER which g. VANCE, JJ., join. See Comment *3 plaintiff, having brought The voluntarily LEIBSON, Justice, dissenting. grant his action in a court which can him Respectfully, I dissent. relief, only limited cannot insist main- Small relatively Claims Court is a recent taining another aсtion on the claim. special legislature, creation the statu- of attempts Riherd to finesse the rule of tory procedure the “Small by established arguing by law that the district court did Act,” Claims KRS 24A.200 to 24A.360. ruling negligence. not make a on This KRS 24A.200 “Purpose” defines its to theory simply help does not Riherd. He include: to “make judicial system the more complaint, filed a he testified as to Kir- and comprehensible pub- available to the negligence, chner’s certainly made out lic;” simplify practice procedure;” “to negligence a case part of on the of Kir- permit litigants to participate in the chner. The fact that the trial court did not “handling and trial of such cases ... question reach the liability negli- of behalf;” their own provide “to an efficient gence change does not the fact that there inexpensive forum with the objective of was a on the merits based on a dispensing justice manner;” speedy grew claim that out of the automobile acci- “generally promote the сonfidence dent. The trial court ruled as a matter of public judicial the in the system overall law that Riherd was not entitled to the providing by a forum for small claims.” claimed; relief he hence the directed ver- In present case we have turned Small terms, dict. Reduced to simplest its Claims Court from its statutory “Purpose” filed, claim was the claim was decided on trap into a for the unwary, making inno merits, and the claim arose out of the people designed cent victims of the it was same tort as the сircuit court All action. serve. We are not compelled to this present elements were to bar future by legal principles result that bear on arising claims out of the same incident. the case. The Majority Opinion has cited general concerning rule splitting a We opinion are of the the Court of cause of action found in the Appeals decision erroneously decided that (Second) Judgments, (1982), erro but § some given effect should be to the fact that neously disregarded clearly stated “Ex Riherd’s personal etc., claim for injuries, ceptions Concerning to the General Rule jurisdiction exceeded the of the district Splitting” found in 26 of the same Re § very court. That is the prohi basis of the (Second) Judgments. statement against splitting bition a cause by Applying the rule instead of the making a claim for of the cause of exceptions wrong is particularly in this action in a lower court. issue was case because the theory prohibition The for the litigated even Small Claims Court. John splitting a cause of action is largely barred proceeding Riherd was without an attor- ground on the that fairness to the defend- ney, contemplates. as the Small Claims Act judicial ant and sound administration re- got point When to the where he point quire litigation that at some over a that he did not use his in his testified car particular controversy brought be to a final work, work, only drove it to and from but conclusion. judge explained to him Ken- that under decision of Appeals The the Court of is tucky law he was not entitled to claim loss reversed. of use for an automobile these circum- dismissed Thereupon judge
stances. the claim for loss of use the case because (3) A new determination of the issue is litigating. only claim was the by quality in the warranted differences procedures fol- or extensiveness I am concerned that our decision in the two courts or factors lowed claim for loss of use of an insignificant this relating jurisdiction to the allocation of automobile Small Claims Court barred a them;” between personal major claim in circuit court general pub- injuries will be viewed pertinent Comment d to 28 states in § overly proof lic as that the law has become part: technical, unjust. unreasonable and “[Tjhere may compelling why be reasоns purpose Majority Opinion defeats the preclusion apply. For should exam- statutory scheme in the Small Claims ple, procedures in the first available Act. court have been tailored to the *4 (Second) 26, Judgments, Restatement prompt, inеxpensive § determination of “Exceptions Rule to the General Concern- small claims and thus wholly be ing Splitting,” states: inappropriate to the determination of the
“(1) following presented same issues when in the con- any circum- When larger (Emphasis exists, text of a much claim.” rule of 24 stances § added.) extinguish claim, apply does subsists as and or all of the claim The Restatement then provides “Illustra- possible by basis for a second action meaning perfectly make the tions” which plaintiff against thе defendant: clear: brings against B to “6. A an action (d) is the sense of the [I]t [“statu- property damage in a court recover for tory”] plaintiff scheme that the should be jurisdiction is limited to claims whose claim;” permitted split $2,000. exceeding governing rules e, litigation in the applicable the conduct of “Implementation Comment of a statu- scheme,” substantially as those explains: court are the same tory or constitutional general jurisdiction. in After courts of may appear from a consideration of “[I]t trial, rendered verdict and are statutory litiga- the entire scheme finding on of a of B’s for A the basis tion, ordinary analysis might on be which subsequent by B negligence. In a action objectionable repetitive, is considered as $10,000 against personаl inju- A for permitted.” here intended to be occurrence, arising out of the same ries The Small Claims Act and Small Claims finding negligence in first of B’s statutory exactly Court is the kind of action is conclusive. 26(l)(d), contemplated by by and scheme § as in Illus- 7. The facts are thе same If explanatory note in Comment e. 6, except that the action is tration first this, any is it is resolved there doubt about brought in a small claims court which following to “Illustration 5” reference $500, ceiling and jurisdictional has e, 28(3) of Comment reference to § informally plead- operates which without (Second) Judgments the Restatement ings, rules of evidence. The counsel or explaining d that subsection. Comment finding B’s is not conclu- provides: 28§ (Emphasis in second action.” sive “Although actually litigated issue is an added.) judg- by a valid and final and determined example perfect is a Court ment, is essential Small Claims and the determination split- exception to the rule relitigation of judgment, the issue to the in 26 of the ting par- of causes subsequent action between § specified is the Illustra- following precluded ties is not general rule of exception to the tion of circumstances:
37 28 of the Restate- preclusion issue §
ment. respectfully suggest
I that we should not
separate ourselves from the mainstream of the Re represented by
American law as
statement overly to achieve an technical involving
result. Two cases decisions un acts, point,
der squarely small claims the Restate
adopting the view stated
ment and this Dissenting Opinion are Niemann, 563, 110
Sanderson v. 17 Cal.2d Co., (1941) and Village Supply
P.2d 1025 Fund, Inc.,
Inc. v. Iowa
(Ia.1981). We are cited no cases to the
contrary. apply
We have elected to the rules used case, Ligon, Pilcher v.
in an 1891
Ky.
Ky.Law
Rep.
(1891), one years hundred later to a new
specialized statutory procedure, Small
Claims Thus applied, Court. the rule de *5 purpose
feats the of Small Claims Court. penalize availing
The result is to Riherd for legislation
himself of the remedial that the Assembly seeking provide
General
himto the Small Claims Act. VANCE, JJ.,
AKER join in this dis-
sent.
Eugene GALL, Jr., Williams
Respondent/Appellant,
v. Kentucky,
COMMONWEALTH of
Movant/Appellee.
Supreme Kentucky. Court of
Nov. 1985.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1986.