Opinion
January 11, 1968.
March 15, 1968.
Judgments — Res judicata — Collateral estoppel.
1. In this action of trespass in which the plaintiff sought to recover compensatory damages under the Jones Act and the Admiralty doctrine of seaworthiness upon allegations that upon a certain day while she was on a ship on the Ohio River she "was caused to lose her balance and be injured by the sudden lurching movement of the vessel, and she then and there sustained the severe and permanent injuries which are herein complained of"; and it appeared that plaintiff had filed an action in a federal court for maintenance and cure based upon the same incident in which the federal court had found "this Court is unable to conclude that [plaintiff] suffered any injury on board respondent's motor vessel" and plaintiff "has not met her burden of proof" and entered judgment for the defendant, it was Held that, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, plaintiff is precluded from relitigating that same issue in the State court and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
2. If the parties to an action have had an opportunity to appear and be heard in a prior proceeding involving the same subject matter, all issues of fact which were actually adjudicated in the former action and essential to the judgment therein are concluded as between the parties even though the causes of action in the two proceedings are not identical.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented.
Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 122, March T., 1967, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1963, No. 3105, in case of Evelyn Walker v. The Ohio River Company. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 44 Pa. D. C.2d 200.
Action for compensatory damages under Jones Act and admiralty doctrine of seaworthiness. Second cause of action for maintenance and cure under general admiralty law.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted and complaint dismissed, opinion by SMART, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Harry Alan Sherman, with him S. Eldridge Sampliner, for appellant.
Anthony J. Polito, with him Harold R. Schmidt, and Rose, Schmidt Dixon, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed on the opinion of Judge SMART, as reported in 44 Pa. D. C.2d 200 (1967).
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents.