Taylor v. Gen. Motors Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 97-CA-00610-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-23-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Dismissal - Res judicata - Stipulation - M.R.A.P. 42(b) - M.R.C.P. 17(c) Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller and Easley, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, J. Dissent Joined By : McRae, P.J., and Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-07-1997 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: Entered a MRCP 41(b) dismissal. Case Number: 2000-0404 |
|
| Consolidated: 97-CA-00610-SCT Steve R. Taylor, individually and as guardian of the minor, Randell G. Taylor v. General Motors Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company; Pearl River Circuit Court; LC Case #: 960173; Ruling Date: 04/07/1997; Ruling Judge: R. I. Prichard, III | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Steve R. Taylor, individually and as guardian of the minor, Randell G. Taylor |
JOHN D. SMALLWOOD
GLENN LOUIS WHITE |
||
| Appellee: | General Motors Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company | HAROLD WAITS MELVIN PATRICIA FRANCINE MELVIN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Dismissal - Res judicata - Stipulation - M.R.A.P. 42(b) - M.R.C.P. 17(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following an accident which occurred while Randell Taylor was a passenger in a car driven by his uncle, Donald Taylor, Randell’s father, Steven Taylor, filed suit on behalf of Randell against Donald, Allstate Insurance Company and General Motors Corporation. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to all three defendants because Randell's counsel, a Louisiana attorney, did not qualify pro hac vice and as to Donald for failure to serve personal process. Randell appealed, and the Supreme Court found that the trial court had properly dismissed the case, without prejudice, because Randell's attorneys had failed to qualify pro hac vice. Randell then filed a second suit against Donald, General Motors and Allstate. The court dismissed this suit with prejudice as to Donald. Randell reached a settlement with General Motors and Allstate. Randell then filed a third suit against Donald alleging that Donald was negligent. The court granted Donald's motion to dismiss under the doctrine of res judicata. Randell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Dismissal Randell argues that the dismissals by the court were without prejudice and do not bar his third suit against Donald. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court specifically stated that the dismissal was without prejudice as to the claim of Randell, a minor. Issue 2: Res judicata Randell argues that the court erred in finding that his suit was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. While the case was pending on appeal to the Supreme Court, Steve and Donald entered into a stipulation of dismissal. The stipulation clearly stated the parties agreed to dismiss Donald with prejudice. Therefore, pursuant to M.R.A.P. 42(b), the appeal was dismissed on the motion of the parties pursuant to the terms agreed upon in their stipulation. While Randell’s claims remain viable, they can only be asserted as to those parties who might have potential liability. A party, who has been dismissed with prejudice, such as Donald, has no further liability as to Steve or Randell. A parent appearing as next friend has authority under M.R.C.P. 17(c) to enter into a stipulation, subject to approval by the court, as was the case here. Consent judgments receive the same force as regular judgments, in binding parties under collateral estoppel and res judicata. Therefore, the court did not err in dismissing the suit based on res judicata. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
