Rush v. City of Maple Heights case brief summary

Rush v. City of Maple Heights case brief

Ohio Supreme 1958

Posture: Defendant appealed a judgment for plaintiff which was affirmed in the court of appeals and Supreme Court. Plaintiff now wants to bring a second which resulted in her winning in trial court. Ohio supreme reverses that second judgment, says it was barred by res judicata. 

Facts: The plaintiff was injured in fall from the motorcycle, sues defendant city for negligence in maintaining its streets and that negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages to property, not personal injuries. Plaintiff wins property case and brings a second trial for personal injuries sustained. She wins personal injuries claim as well for damages buthe t issue of negligence was barred. 

Reasoning: Injuries to person and property are different causes of action and that recovery for the property is no bar to recovery for personal injury unless plaintiff lost in the first action. However, other state court’s held that one wrongful act can be the basis of one action; all damages sustained must be sued for in one suit and it seems wrong to allow two different amounts to be recovered for. The court, instead, decided to overrule a previous decision and say that one cause of action makes a lot more sense than two for the same tort. 

Check out our eBook: How to Win at Law School to see how to transfer to a top school, get the top grades in your class, and get a head start on the legal profession!