## Facts

- The Holmeses bought a used car from David H. Bricker, Inc. under an installment contract containing an express warranty that the car would be in good operating condition for 30 days or 1,000 miles.
- During the warranty period, the car crashed into a fixed object on a downgrade; both plaintiffs were injured and the car was damaged.
- Plaintiffs alleged defective brakes caused the crash.
- Plaintiffs first sued in superior court for personal injuries, asserting (among other theories) breach of the quoted express warranty and alleging the accident was caused by defective brakes.
- A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, and a judgment for $49,400 became final.
- While the superior court action was pending, plaintiffs filed a second action in municipal court seeking property damage to the car, pleading a warranty-based cause of action identical to the warranty claim in the superior court case except for the damages sought.
- The municipal court sustained defendant’s general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action on the ground plaintiffs could and should have asserted the property-damage claim in the superior court action.

## Issues

1. Whether a final judgment in an action for personal injuries based on an alleged breach of a single express warranty bars a subsequent action seeking property damages from the same accident and alleged breach under res judicata and the rule against splitting a cause of action.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held both suits were based on the same alleged breach of the same express warranty and therefore constituted one cause of action under California’s primary-right theory.
- Because plaintiffs could have sought property damages in the superior court action, the later municipal court suit was barred.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s primary-right theory, a cause of action consists of a plaintiff’s primary right, a defendant’s corresponding duty, and a wrongful act breaching that duty.
- The violation of a single primary right constitutes a single cause of action even if it supports multiple remedies, items of damages, or legal theories.
- A plaintiff may not split a single cause of action into separate suits seeking different categories of damages; a final judgment in the first action precludes later actions based on the same wrong.
- Jurisdictional or amount-in-controversy considerations do not justify splitting a claim when the entire controversy could have been litigated in the first action.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs’ personal-injury judgment and their later property-damage claim arose from the same alleged breach of the same express warranty and the same accident, California’s primary-right theory treated them as one cause of action, and res judicata barred the second suit.


Holmes v. David H. Bricker, Inc., 70 Cal. 2d 786, 452 P.2d 647 (Cal. 1969)