Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.

Supreme Court of Ohio · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureres judicataissue preclusionclaim splittingassignmentsubrogationres judicatacollateral estoppel

Facts

The plaintiff suffered both personal injuries and property damage from a single allegedly negligent act by the defendant. He assigned his property-damage claim to his insurance carrier, which then sued the defendant and lost. The plaintiff later brought his own action against the same defendant for personal injuries. The defendant argued that the prior judgment for the defendant on the insurer's property-damage suit barred the personal-injury action.

Issue

When one negligent act causes both personal injury and property damage to the same person, does an adverse judgment in an assignee-insurer's action on the assigned property-damage claim bar the injured person's later action for personal injuries? Also, does the prior judgment estop the injured person on negligence or contributory-negligence issues decided in the insurer's action?

Rule

In negligence cases, injury to person and injury to property, though resulting from the same wrongful act, constitute different causes of action because they invade different primary rights and require materially different facts and proof. Therefore, a full assignment of the entire property-damage claim to an insurer-subrogee permits the insurer to sue separately, and judgment in that action is neither res judicata nor estoppel against the assignor's later personal-injury action absent identity of parties or privity as to the retained personal-injury claim.

🔒

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 Columbus, Nora Patel was struck when a delivery van owned by Lakeview Fixture Co. ran a red light. Nora suffered a broken wrist and her laptop was destroyed. She first sued only for the laptop loss and lost after trial; six months later, she filed a new action against Lakeview Fixture Co. for her bodily injuries from the same collision.

Should the second action be barred as an impermissible second suit on the same cause of action?

Explanation. The majority held that in negligence cases, bodily injury and property damage invade different primary rights and therefore constitute different causes of action, even when produced by a single wrongful act. Because the causes of action differ, the first judgment on the property claim is not res judicata as to the later personal-injury claim. (Derived from Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc. (n.d.).)