Hunter v. City of Des Moines
300 N.W.2d 121, 1981 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 843 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of issue preclusion may be applied offensively by a plaintiff who was not a party to a prior action, but trial courts have broad discretion to deny its application where the plaintiff could have easily joined in the earlier action or where it would be otherwise unfair to the defendant.
Facts:
- On January 18, 1978, Michael J. Hunter was driving an automobile owned by Becky McMurry.
- Karen Wadle was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Hunter.
- The vehicle was involved in a collision with another car at an intersection in Des Moines.
- A snowpile, which the City of Des Moines had allegedly failed to remove, was present near the intersection.
- The snowpile allegedly obstructed the vision of the drivers involved in the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Following a car accident, two separate lawsuits were filed against the City of Des Moines: one by Karen Wadle, and another by Michael Hunter and Becky McMurry (plaintiffs).
- The City of Des Moines moved the trial court to consolidate the two actions, but the motion was overruled.
- The City's application to the Iowa Supreme Court for an interlocutory appeal of the consolidation ruling was denied.
- The Wadle lawsuit was tried first, resulting in a judgment against the City of Des Moines.
- Plaintiffs then filed an application in their own case asking the trial court to rule that the Wadle judgment precluded the City from relitigating the issues of its negligence and proximate cause.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' application.
- The case proceeded to trial, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the City of Des Moines.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa, challenging the trial court's denial of their application for issue preclusion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Iowa law, may a plaintiff who could have easily joined a prior action use a favorable judgment from that action to offensively preclude the same defendant from relitigating an issue in a subsequent case?
Opinions:
Majority - Allbee, Justice.
No. While Iowa law will no longer invariably bar offensive non-mutual issue preclusion, it may not be applied where the plaintiff could have easily joined the prior action. The court abandons the traditional mutuality requirement for offensive issue preclusion and adopts the discretionary framework of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 88. This approach balances judicial economy with fairness to the defendant. The court recognizes the risk that abandoning mutuality could incentivize potential plaintiffs to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude, hoping for a favorable judgment in a first action without being bound by an unfavorable one. To curb this, courts must consider fairness, and a key factor is whether the plaintiff could have easily joined the prior litigation. In this case, while the four threshold requirements for issue preclusion were met and the City of Des Moines had a full and fair opportunity to litigate its negligence in the Wadle case, the plaintiffs could have easily joined that action. Their failure to do so is a compelling reason to deny the application of offensive issue preclusion, as it would be unfair to the defendant and would not promote judicial economy.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered Iowa's civil procedure by abandoning the strict mutuality requirement for offensive issue preclusion. It aligns Iowa with the modern trend in federal courts and the Restatement, promoting judicial efficiency by preventing the relitigation of decided issues. However, the decision also establishes important guardrails by granting trial courts discretion to deny preclusion when it would be unfair, particularly in 'wait and see' situations where a plaintiff bypasses an opportunity to join a prior suit. This creates a strong incentive for plaintiffs with claims arising from the same event to join in a single action, thereby reducing duplicative litigation.
