Issue Preclusion: When is an issue “essential to the judgment”?

Instructions:

  • ASSUME we are in a jurisdiction with a contributory negligence rule.
  • FURTHER ASSUME that the record shows that the finder of fact actually decided each of the eight bullet-point issues below.
  • For each of the eight issues actually decided, ask, going issue-by-issue: if the outcome of that issue were reversed, would the result of the judgment change?
    • If the answer to this question is “yes,” then the issue is essential to the judgment.
    • If the answer to this question is “no,” the the issue is not essential to the judgment.
    • The answers are provided via bold. Boldface indicates that the issue was essential to the judgment.  Non-boldface means the issue was not essential to the judgment.
A. Judgment: plaintiff loses 

  • Plaintiff negligent (makes difference: if P not negligent, then P wins)
  • Defendant negligent (makes no difference: even if D not negligent, P still loses)

This is like Cambria; see also nn. 3-5 in CB after Cambria

 B. Judgment: plaintiff loses

  • Plaintiff negligent (makes no difference: even if P not negligent, P still loses)
  • Defendant not negligent (makes no difference: even if D negligent, P still loses)

See n. 9 in CB after Cambria
C. Judgment: plaintiff wins

  • Plaintiff not negligent (makes difference: if P negligent, then P loses)
  • Defendant negligent (makes difference: if D not negligent, then P loses)

See n. 6 in CB after Cambria

 D. Judgment: plaintiff loses

  • Plaintiff not negligent (makes no difference: even if P negligent, P still loses)
  • Defendant not negligent (makes difference: if D negligent, then P wins)

See n. 7 in CB after Cambria

Updated Apr. 22, 2015 (expanding explanations, adding color)