Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Carter v. Hinkle

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1949 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureClaim splittingRes judicataJoinder of actionsPersonal injury and property damageclaim splittingres judicatasingle tort

Facts

Hinkle owned and drove a taxicab that collided head-on with an automobile owned by Smith and driven by Smith's agent, Carter, on U.S. Route 60 in Alleghany County on December 20, 1946. It was conceded that Carter's negligence proximately caused the collision. Hinkle first sued Smith for $750 in damage to the taxi and $250 for loss of use, recovered judgment for the full amount, and that judgment was paid and marked satisfied. Hinkle later brought a separate action against Carter and Smith for personal injuries arising from the same collision.

Issue

When a single wrongful act causes both damage to a plaintiff's property and injury to his person, does the plaintiff have only one cause of action that must be brought in a single suit, or may the plaintiff maintain separate actions for the property damage and the personal injury? If the plaintiff first recovers judgment for property damage, does that judgment bar a later personal-injury action arising from the same tort?

Rule

In Virginia, a single tort that invades both the plaintiff's right of personal security and the plaintiff's property right creates two distinct causes of action. Although such causes may be joined in one action, the plaintiff is not required to do so, and a satisfied judgment in an action for property damage does not bar a later action for personal injuries arising from the same wrongful act.

🔒

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 Richmond, Dana Mercer was struck by a delivery van owned by Blue Lantern Logistics and driven negligently by its employee, Owen Pike. Dana's laptop was destroyed and she also suffered a shoulder injury. She first sued only for the laptop loss, obtained a judgment, and Blue Lantern paid it in full.

If Dana later brings a second action for her shoulder injury arising from the same collision, what is the strongest argument against a res judicata bar under Virginia law as stated in the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority held that a single tort causing both property damage and personal injury gives rise to two distinct causes of action because two different primary rights are invaded: the right of property and the right of personal security. Therefore, a satisfied judgment on the property-damage claim does not bar a later personal-injury suit. The rule is not a general negligence exception, does not depend on difficulty of proof, and is not based on adding another defendant.