The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
RICHARD DUVALL ) FILED
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No. June 29, 1999
) 01A01-9810-CV-00530
v. ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
) Davidson County Circuit
ARTIE MOBLEY ) No. 98C-1241
)
Defendant/Appellee. )
)
COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
THE HONORABLE THOMAS W. BROTHERS PRESIDING
JAMES BRYAN LEWIS
BARRETT, JOHNSTON & PARSLEY
217 SECOND AVENUE NORTH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37201
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
SCOTT A. RHODES
ADAIR, SCHUERMAN & WHITE
BRENTWOOD COMMONS 1, SUITE 160
750 OLD HICKORY BOULEVARD
BRENTWOOD, TENNESSEE 37027
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
KOCH, J.
CAIN, J.
OPINION
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s Order granting summary judgment to
Defendant on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. We affirm the order of the trial court.
This case involves a car accident which occurred between the parties on
August 9, 1997, in Nashville, Davidson County. Richard Duvall (hereinafter
Plaintiff) filed a Civil Warrant in General Sessions Court against Artie Mobley
(hereinafter Defendant), seeking damages for injury to personal property
resulting from the accident. The case was set on March 31, 1998, at which time
the parties reached an agreement on the issue of damages to Plaintiff’s vehicle
in the amount of $8,500. A hearing on the merits was held on Plaintiff’s
remaining claim for damages done to other personal property. Plaintiff received
a judgment for an additional $500.
On May 5, 1998, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for
Davidson County against the same defendant. In this complaint, Plaintiff sought
an award for personal injury damages allegedly sustained during the same
accident which was the subject of the parties’ earlier law suit.1 On June 9, 1998,
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment raising the doctrine of res
judicata. On September 30, 1998, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion on
the ground that Plaintiff’s claim based on personal injury was barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff now appeals.
Res judicata is a claim preclusion doctrine that promotes finality in
litigation. Moulton v. Ford Motor Company, 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976).
A final judgment in General Sessions Court bars a subsequent suit in another
1
Although Plaintiff submits that he did not know the full extent of his
injuries at the time of the accident, it is undisputed that he was aware that he had
been injured immediately after the accident.
2
court on the same subject. Staggs v. Vaughn, 205 Tenn. 9, 325 S.W.2d 277
(1959).
Res judicata bars a second suit between the same parties and their privies
on the same cause of action as to all issues which were or could have been
litigated in the former suit. Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry, 913
S.W.2d 446, 449 (Tenn. 1995).
Under Tennessee law:
A single tort can be the foundation for but one claim for damages.
***All damages which can by any possibility result from a single
tort form an indivisible cause of action. Every cause of action in
tort consists of two parts, to wit, the unlawful act, and all damages
that can arise from it. For damages alone no action can be
permitted. Hence, if a recovery has once been had for the unlawful
act, no subsequent suit can be maintained.
*****
[I]f the plaintiff, suing for damages for injuries resulting from a single tort, does
not include in his suit all the injuries sustained, a subsequent suit for those
omitted will be barred upon a plea of res adjudicata aptly pleaded. This follows
naturally from the conclusion that the recovery is for the tort, and not for the
injuries. If 'a single tort can be the foundation for but one claim for damages,' it
[in]evitably follows that there can be but one suit to recover for injuries resulting
from that tort.
Potts v. Celotex, 796 S.W.2d 678, 682 (Tenn. 1990) (internal citations
omitted in the original) (quoting National Cordova Corporation v. City of
Memphis, 214 Tenn. 371, 380-381, 380 S.W.2d 793, 797 (1964), quoting
Johnston v. Southern Ry. Co., 155 Tenn. 639, 643, 299 S.W. 785, 786 (1927)).
The judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff’s lawsuit is affirmed.
This case is remanded to the trial court for any further proceedings which may
be necessary. Costs are taxed to Appellant, Mr. Richard Duvall, for which
execution, if necessary, may issue.
3
_____________________________
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JUDGE
___________________________________
WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
4