Carter v. Hinkle
189 Va. 1, 1949 Va. LEXIS 143, 52 S.E.2d 135 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single wrongful act that results in both personal injury and property damage to an individual gives rise to two distinct causes of action, and a judgment resolving the property damage claim does not bar a subsequent action for personal injuries.
Facts:
- A taxicab owned and driven by Hinkle was involved in a head-on collision with an automobile owned by Smith and operated by his agent, Carter.
- The collision occurred on December 20, 1946, near Covington, Virginia.
- The collision was proximately caused by the negligence of Carter.
- As a result of the collision, Hinkle's taxicab was damaged.
- Hinkle also sustained personal injuries in the same collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Hinkle first sued Smith in a Virginia trial court for property damage to his taxicab and loss of its use.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Hinkle for $1,000, which Smith paid in full.
- Hinkle later filed a second action in the same trial court against Smith and Carter, this time seeking damages for personal injuries from the same collision.
- The defendants filed a plea arguing the first judgment barred the second lawsuit under the doctrine of res judicata.
- The trial court overruled the defendants' plea, allowing the case to proceed to a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for Hinkle for $1,000, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The defendants, Smith and Carter, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single wrongful act that causes both personal injury and property damage to one person give rise to two separate causes of action, thereby permitting the injured party to maintain two separate lawsuits?
Opinions:
Majority - Gregory, J.
Yes. A single wrongful act that causes both damage to property and injury to person gives rise to two distinct causes of action. The court adopts the minority American view, reasoning that the issue turns on the number of rights invaded, not the singularity of the wrongful act. The right of personal security and the right of property are fundamentally different, and an invasion of each constitutes a separate wrong. This approach is consistent with the English common law case of Brunsden v. Humphrey, which is declaratory of the common law adopted by Virginia. The court noted that different legal rules, such as statutes of limitation, assignability of claims, and survival of actions, apply to personal injury and property damage claims, reinforcing their distinct nature. Allowing separate actions is also practical in light of issues involving insurance subrogation.
Dissenting - Eggleston, J.
No. A single tort gives rise to only a single cause of action, and injuries to person and property are merely different items of damage resulting from the same wrong. This 'single cause of action' rule is the majority view in the United States and has been generally applied in Virginia's trial courts. It avoids a multiplicity of actions, which saves time and expense and prevents defendants from being harassed by multiple lawsuits arising from the same incident. The majority's decision to adopt the contrary rule is a step in the wrong direction and an invitation to prolong litigation.
Analysis:
This decision officially aligned Virginia with the growing minority of states that follow the 'two causes of action' or 'rights-based' rule. It prioritizes the logical distinction between different types of rights invaded (personal security vs. property) over the judicial efficiency goal of preventing multiple lawsuits from a single wrongful act. The ruling has significant practical implications for tort litigation, especially in automobile accident cases, as it allows property damage claims (often handled by insurance companies through subrogation) to be resolved separately from and without precluding a later personal injury claim by the individual.
