Faulkner v. Caledonia County Fair Association
Volume 175, Vermont Reports, Page 554 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of claim preclusion bars a subsequent lawsuit for a later-manifesting injury if that injury arises from the same transaction or occurrence as a previously litigated claim for which a final judgment was entered.
Facts:
- In 1991, plaintiff was struck on the head by a large metal panel while on an amusement ride at the Caledonia County Fair.
- The ride was operated by Marc’s Amusement Co., Inc. (Marc’s), and the fair was run by Caledonia County Fair Association (County Fair).
- As a result of the 1991 incident, plaintiff sustained head injuries.
- On November 12, 1999, plaintiff suffered her first grand mal seizure.
- On April 5, 2000, a physician diagnosed plaintiff with epilepsy, determining that the 1991 head injury was the proximate cause.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1994, plaintiff sued Marc’s Amusement Co., Inc. in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) for her head injuries.
- In 1995, the U.S. District Court rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $5,000, which was collected.
- In November 2002, plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against both Marc’s Amusement Co., Inc. and Caledonia County Fair Association in the Caledonia Superior Court (a state trial court).
- Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the second lawsuit.
- The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the claim was barred by claim preclusion and the statute of limitations.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Vermont Supreme Court.
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 the doctrine of claim preclusion bar a plaintiff from bringing a second personal injury lawsuit for a newly discovered medical condition that arose from the same accident for which she had already obtained a final judgment and recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Skoglund, J.
Yes, the doctrine of claim preclusion bars a second lawsuit for a newly discovered condition arising from the same transaction as the first lawsuit. The court adopts the modern 'transactional approach' from the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, under which all claims arising from a single 'transaction, or series of connected transactions' constitute a single cause of action and must be litigated together. The 1991 accident was the single transaction giving rise to all of plaintiff's injuries, including the later-manifesting epilepsy. The fact that the full extent of the damages was not known at the time of the first lawsuit is immaterial. The court distinguishes this 'traumatic event/latent manifestation' case from latent disease cases (e.g., asbestos exposure), where a second, distinct disease may constitute a separate cause of action. The powerful public policies favoring the finality of judgments outweigh the potential hardship to an individual plaintiff in this situation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Vermont's adoption of the modern 'transactional approach' to claim preclusion, favoring a broader view of what constitutes a single cause of action over older, more rigid standards like the 'same evidence' test. It establishes a strong precedent that a single tortious act gives rise to only one cause of action, encompassing all subsequent harms, even those that are unknown or latent at the time of the first lawsuit. This ruling places the burden on plaintiffs in personal injury cases to litigate all potential future damages in their initial suit, reinforcing the principle of finality and preventing piecemeal litigation stemming from a single event.
Unlock the full brief for Faulkner v. Caledonia County Fair Association