Rush v. City of Maple Heights
167 Ohio St. (N.S.) 221 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a person suffers both personal injuries and property damage as a result of the same wrongful act, only a single cause of action arises, requiring the person to sue for all damages in a single lawsuit.
Facts:
- A plaintiff was involved in a single wrongful act, an accident.
- As a result of this single act, the plaintiff sustained personal injuries.
- The plaintiff also sustained damage to her property in the same accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff first filed an action for property damage in the Cleveland Municipal Court.
- Plaintiff obtained a judgment in her favor in the property damage lawsuit.
- Plaintiff then filed a separate action for personal injuries arising from the same accident in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (trial court).
- The trial court permitted the second action to proceed over the defendant's objection.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 the same person give rise to a single cause of action, thereby barring a second lawsuit for personal injuries after a judgment has been obtained for property damage?
Opinions:
Majority - Herbert, J.
Yes, a single wrongful act that results in both personal and property injury to the same person gives rise to only one cause of action. The court overrules paragraph four of the syllabus in Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc., which had established that injuries to person and property were infringements of different rights that gave rise to distinct causes of action. The court adopts the majority rule in the United States, reasoning that because the defendant's act is single, the cause of action must also be single. This rule is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits, burdensome expenses, and vexatious litigation against defendants. The court found the reasoning of the minority rule, which stems from the English case Brunsden v. Humphrey, to be a 'subtlety not warranted by law.'
Dissenting - Zimmerman, J.
No, the court should not disturb the established precedent that injuries to person and property from the same act give rise to distinct causes of action. The dissent argues for the principle of stare decisis, noting that the court deliberately adopted the 'two causes of action' rule in Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc. less than 13 years prior. Given the sharp division of authority on this issue nationwide, there is no compelling reason to overturn a clear precedent that the lower courts and legal profession have relied on for stability. The prior rule, supported by respectable authority, should remain the law in Ohio.
Concurring - Stewart, J.
Yes, a single wrongful act gives rise to only one cause of action. The concurrence agrees with the majority's conclusion but emphasizes that the portion of Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc. being overruled was obiter dicta, meaning it was not essential to the holding of that case. Because it was dicta, the principle of stare decisis is less persuasive, and the court is justified in departing from it. The concurring opinion also describes the dissent in Brunsden v. Humphrey, the case that originated the minority rule, as 'logically unanswerable,' thus supporting the adoption of the single-cause-of-action rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly changed Ohio law by explicitly overruling the 'two causes of action' rule from Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc. and adopting the majority 'single cause of action' rule. By doing so, the court aligned Ohio with the prevailing view in the United States, prioritizing judicial economy and the prevention of piecemeal litigation. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that a plaintiff must join all claims for personal injury and property damage from a single tortious act in one lawsuit, otherwise they risk being barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata). This holding forces plaintiffs to be comprehensive in their initial filings and protects defendants from having to defend against multiple lawsuits arising from the same event.
