Boat Swell Accident Provides Look Into Res Judicata

The first element of an independent action in equity that allows an individual to bypass res judicata analyzes whether the judge’s determination in the original case was truly fair and made in good conscience. When a judge shows bias, as in the boat swell case, the judge’s decision is likely swayed and not independent. This is unfair to the losing party and therefore helps a claim bypass res judicata.

The second element requires that the original case claim have merit. If the claim is frivolous, then there is no reason for the court to negate res judicata and grant a new trial. This again protects judicial efficiency and duplicitous suits. When determining the merit of the underlying suit, a judge will simply read the complaint to see if it makes an actual claim that, if true, would lead to recovery. In the boat swell case, the personal injury claim did have merit and thus satisfied this prong.

The third element requires courts to determine whether fraud was a reason that the losing party did not prevail in the underlying case. Similar to the first element, fraud is likely to sway a judge’s decision to the detriment of the losing party. This is what happened in the boat swell case as the judge’s decision was basically bought with lavish hunting trips.

Fourthly, in order to bypass res judicata, the party seeking a new trial must not have been at fault with regards to the underlying fraud or deceit. If the party is at fault, then their attempt to sway the judge’s decision obviously failed and no new trial is needed. The plaintiff in the boat swell case had nothing to do with the fraud. In fact, the plaintiff did everything in her power to uncover the fraud, but was unsuccessful.

Lastly, a successful independent action in equity requires that there is no other adequate remedy at law. Since res judicata is such a prevalent legal theory, courts are reluctant to bypass it unless completely necessary. Therefore, courts want parties to seek other forms of remedy at law before granting a new trial that would otherwise contradict res judicata. Requiring this step helps ensure judicial efficiency and protects litigants from facing duplicitous suits.

Taking all of these elements into consideration, the Court of Appeals in the boat swells case found that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial. The plaintiff did everything in her power to expose the fraud, but the judge denied any accusations. The judge’s bias and acceptance of gifts clouded his judgment as evidenced by his seemingly unjustifiable choice to accept testimony by the defense’s expert over that of the plaintiff’s expert. Such decisions portray the immense power held by judges. Any abuse of that power can have devastating consequences for the parties involved and can send ripples of injustice through the court system.