## Facts

- In 1991, Dorrie L. Faulkner was injured at the Caledonia County Fair when a large metal panel struck her head while she was on an amusement ride.
- In 1994, Faulkner sued Marc’s Amusement Co., Inc. (the ride operator) in federal court for damages from the 1991 head injury.
- In 1995, the federal court entered a final judgment for Faulkner for $5,000, which she collected.
- On November 12, 1999, Faulkner suffered her first grand mal seizure.
- On April 5, 2000, her physician diagnosed epilepsy and attributed it to the 1991 head injury.
- In November 2002, Faulkner filed a new Vermont state-court action against Marc’s and the Caledonia County Fair Association, seeking damages for epilepsy allegedly caused by the 1991 incident.
- The trial court dismissed the 2002 action on claim preclusion and, alternatively, as untimely under 12 V.S.A. § 512(4).

## Issues

1. Whether claim preclusion bars a second personal-injury lawsuit seeking damages for a later-discovered medical condition allegedly caused by the same 1991 accident that was reduced to final judgment in an earlier suit.
2. Whether the 2002 action is time-barred under Vermont’s personal-injury limitations period, 12 V.S.A. § 512(4).

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the 2002 complaint.
- The court held that claim preclusion barred the second action because it arose from the same transaction and core operative facts as the first suit and sought additional damages for the same injury event.
- The court concluded claim preclusion applied to both defendants because Marc’s was a party to the prior action and the County Fair was sufficiently in privity with Marc’s regarding the liability arising from the ride incident.
- Because claim preclusion was dispositive, the court did not need to rely on the statute-of-limitations ground to affirm.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims that were, or could have been, raised in prior litigation resulting in a final judgment.
- Vermont applies a transactional test: claims are the same cause of action when they arise from the same transaction or core of operative facts.
- A personal-injury plaintiff must seek recovery in one action for all damages—present and future—flowing from the tortious event; later-manifested consequences of the same injury generally are not a new cause of action.
- Claim preclusion may be invoked by a nonparty to the first action when the nonparty is in privity with a party whose interests were sufficiently aligned in the prior litigation.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Faulkner could not bring a second lawsuit for epilepsy diagnosed years after a final judgment for injuries from the same 1991 accident; the later-diagnosed condition was treated as additional damages from the same transaction, and claim preclusion barred relitigation against both the original defendant and a closely related party in privity.


Faulkner v. Caledonia Cnty. Fair Ass’n, 869 A.2d 103 (Vt. 2004)