Hart v. American Airlines, Inc.

Supreme Court of New York, Special Term · 1969 · Civil Procedure

61 Misc. 2d 41 (1969)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentJoint Trialissue preclusionidentity of issuefull and fair opportunityairplane crash litigation

Facts

These actions arose from the November 8, 1965 crash in Kentucky of an American Airlines plane traveling from La Guardia Airport to Covington, Kentucky, which killed 58 of the 62 persons aboard. A prior federal action in Texas, Creasy v. American Airlines, was the first case tried to conclusion and resulted in a plaintiff's verdict against American Airlines after a 19-day trial, with liability submitted under Kentucky negligence law. The pleadings in the Landano and Kirchstein actions showed that their claims against American Airlines were predicated on the same basis, making the airline's liability issue identical to that decided in Texas. The plaintiffs in these two actions, unlike the plaintiffs in the earlier Hart ruling discussed by the court, were New York domiciliaries, as were their decedents.

Issue

Whether American Airlines was collaterally estopped from relitigating its liability for the November 8, 1965 crash based on the prior Texas judgment, thereby entitling these New York plaintiffs to summary judgment on liability and defeating the airline's request for a joint liability trial. Also at issue was whether the prior Hart decision or full faith and credit principles prevented application of New York collateral estoppel doctrine here.

Rule

Under New York law, there are two necessary requirements for collateral estoppel: (1) identity of issue that was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and (2) a full and fair opportunity to contest that issue in the prior action. Mutuality is not required, and once those elements are established, a party who has already had its day in court may be precluded from relitigating the issue.

🔒

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.

A tour bus owned by Lakeshore Transit Co. overturned outside Nashville, Tennessee, injuring dozens of passengers. In the first case tried to verdict, a federal court in Georgia found Lakeshore negligent after a three-week trial applying Tennessee negligence law. Later, Maya Ortiz, a New York resident injured in the same rollover, sued Lakeshore in New York on the same theory of negligence.

If Maya moves for summary judgment on liability based on the Georgia judgment, which is the best argument for granting the motion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, collateral estoppel in New York requires only two elements: the identical issue must have been necessarily decided in the prior action and decisive in the present one, and the party to be estopped must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest it. Those requirements are satisfied where the same defendant’s liability for a single accident was fully litigated before. Mutuality is not required, and preclusion is not automatic merely because the defendant lost the first case.