## Facts

- Two automobiles collided: one owned by John E. Cambria and operated by his servant; the other owned and operated by Ernest Jeffery.
- In an earlier district-court action, Jeffery sued Cambria for personal injury and vehicle damage, alleging negligence by Cambria’s servant.
- The district-court judge found both operators negligent and entered judgment for Cambria because Jeffery’s contributory negligence barred his recovery.
- Cambria later sued Jeffery for damage to Cambria’s automobile, alleging Jeffery’s negligence caused the collision.
- A Superior Court jury returned a verdict for Cambria for $838.35.
- The trial judge, acting under leave reserved, entered a verdict for Jeffery on the theory that the earlier judgment conclusively established contributory negligence by Cambria’s servant and therefore barred Cambria’s recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether a finding in a prior action that Cambria’s servant was negligent precluded Cambria, in a later action, from litigating Jeffery’s liability for property damage arising from the same collision.
2. Whether a fact “merely found” in an earlier case is conclusively adjudicated when it was not necessary to the earlier judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court set aside the defendant’s verdict entered under leave reserved.
- The court held that the earlier finding that Cambria’s servant was negligent was not res judicata (issue-preclusive) in Cambria’s later action.
- The court ordered entry of judgment on the jury’s verdict for Cambria in the amount of $838.35.

## Legal Principles

- A fact becomes adjudicated for issue-preclusion purposes only when it was a basis of the relief granted, the denial of relief, or another ultimate right established by the prior judgment.
- When a prior judgment rests solely on the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, additional findings about the defendant’s negligence that were unnecessary to the result have no preclusive effect in later litigation.
- Issue preclusion does not attach to surplus or nonessential determinations, even if explicitly stated in the prior tribunal’s findings.

## Conclusion

Because the earlier judgment for Cambria in Jeffery’s suit depended only on Jeffery’s contributory negligence, the accompanying finding that Cambria’s servant was negligent was not essential to that judgment and could not bar Cambria’s subsequent negligence claim; judgment was therefore ordered on the jury’s verdict for Cambria.


Cambria v. Jeffery, 307 Mass. 49 (1940)