Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Biggio v. Magee

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRes JudicataJudgmentsConsent Judgmentsres judicataclaim preclusionconsent judgmentaction at law

Facts

The present plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision allegedly caused by the defendant's negligent driving, and it was agreed that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to show the defendant's liability. The defendant introduced the record of an earlier tort action arising from the same collision and involving the same facts, but with the parties reversed, in which judgment was entered for the present defendant for a substantial sum pursuant to a written agreement of counsel and marked satisfied. In both actions, the declarations were the same in substance, and the answers were a general denial plus contributory negligence. The plaintiff argued that the earlier agreed judgment should not bar this action because the attorney who consented to that judgment represented his insurer and acted without his knowledge or assent.

Issue

Does a judgment entered by consent for a substantial sum in an earlier action at law between the same parties, arising from the same collision and involving the same issues, bar a later tort action by the opposing party under res judicata? Does the fact that the earlier consent was arranged by insurer-provided counsel without the party's knowledge avoid the preclusive effect of that judgment?

Rule

When the same parties litigate an action at law arising from the same facts and presenting the same issues, a judgment entered by consent for a substantial sum is an adjudication on the merits and is res judicata to the same extent as a judgment based on a verdict or judicial finding, unless the record shows the judgment was not entered on the merits. The judgment's preclusive effect is not altered by the private intent of counsel or by the fact that insurer-provided counsel agreed to it without the party's knowledge, so long as the attorney's appearance was authorized.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Nolan Pierce sued Elena Ruiz after a two-car crash, alleging Elena's negligent driving injured him. Elena answered with a general denial and contributory negligence, and the case ended with a written agreement for judgment for Nolan for $45,000, which was entered and later marked satisfied.

Elena then files her own tort action against Nolan based on the same collision, alleging Nolan's negligence caused her injuries. Nolan pleads the earlier judgment as a bar. What is the best answer?

Explanation. When the same parties litigate actions at law arising from the same facts and presenting the same issues, a consent judgment for a substantial sum is treated as an adjudication on the merits unless the record shows otherwise. The prior judgment necessarily determined negligence and lack of contributory negligence in a way inconsistent with Elena's later claim, so claim preclusion applies. (Derived from Biggio v. Magee (n.d.).)