Smith v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSmith v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
The plaintiffs in an automobile negligence action have appealed from an order entered by the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as to the defendant insurer.
The sоle question presented for our determination in this aрpeal is whether the said court committed error in dismissing thе complaint as to the defendant insurer upon the bаsis of res judicata or estoppel by judgment.
In the order appealed from herein the court stated that, in entering the order, it considered “the two prior cases that were filed against D. J. Whalen, Helen Whalen and Unitеd Services Automobile Association. . . . ”
The two prior сases referred to by the court in its said order were filed against D. J. Whalen and Helen Whalen, the parents of the defendant Phyllis Whalen, and against the United Services Automobile Association. Phyllis was not, however, a party to thоse cases.
The language quoted above from the order appealed from no doubt reflects thе third ground of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, which ground reads as follows: “That the decision rendered in a previous case tried in this Court, to wit: GERALDINE LAWMAN and EDWARD CLEVELAND SMITH vs. D. J. WHA-LEN, HELEN, WHALEN, and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is res judicata or constitutеs an es-toppel by judgment and is conclusive of the issuеs which the Plaintiffs would try herein and is effective to preсlude the maintenance of this action by the parties herein.”
In our opinion, neither the doctrine of res judiсata nor the doctrine of estoppel by
The courts of Florida have long held that an essential element of res judi-сata is the identity of parties. For instance, the Supreme Court of Florida held in Ford v. Dania Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. et al.,
“The law of res judiсata has many times been declared by this Court. McGregоr v. Provident Trust Co.,119 Fla. 718 ,162 So. 323 ; Day v. Weadock et ux.,104 Fla. 251 ,140 So. 668 . One essential element is identity of partiеs. 34 C.J. 915; Black on Judgments, 2d Ed., Section 500 et seq.”
Similarly as to the doctrine of estoppel by judgment — the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, held in Martin v. Arrow Cabs, Inc.,
We hold in the case at bar that, since the defendant Phyllis Whalen, was not a party tо “the two prior cases” mentioned in the order aрpealed from, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of estoppel by judgment is applicable, and so the said order, dismissing the insurer as a party defendant, was in error. We find no merit in the defendant Phyllis Whаlen’s cross-assignment, as we think the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a cause of action as to her.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the views hereinabove set forth.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.