## Facts

- Michael J. Hunter drove a car owned by Becky McMurry in Des Moines; Karen Wadle rode as a passenger.
- The car collided with another vehicle at an intersection.
- Hunter/McMurry and Wadle separately claimed the City negligently failed to remove a snowpile near the intersection, obstructing visibility and contributing to the collision.
- The City moved to consolidate the two actions; both sets of plaintiffs opposed consolidation, and the trial court denied it.
- Wadle’s case was tried first and resulted in a judgment against the City, including findings that the City was negligent and that its negligence proximately caused the accident.
- After the Wadle judgment, Hunter and McMurry amended their petition and sought a ruling that the City was barred from relitigating negligence and proximate cause in their case.
- The trial court refused to give the Wadle judgment preclusive effect; Hunter/McMurry’s case proceeded to trial and ended in a defense verdict for the City.
- On appeal, Hunter and McMurry challenged only the refusal to apply issue preclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa permits offensive nonmutual issue preclusion when the later plaintiffs were not parties to the first action.
2. Whether, even if permitted in principle, offensive nonmutual issue preclusion should be denied when the later plaintiffs could have joined the first action or accepted consolidation but instead chose separate litigation and opposed consolidation.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for the City.
- Iowa rejected a strict mutuality requirement as an automatic bar to offensive issue preclusion.
- The court held that offensive nonmutual issue preclusion remains discretionary and subject to fairness and judicial-economy limits.
- Because Hunter and McMurry could have joined the earlier action and actively resisted consolidation, the City was not precluded from litigating negligence and proximate cause in their case.

## Legal Principles

- Mutuality of parties is not an absolute prerequisite to offensive issue preclusion in Iowa.
- Offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is applied only when consistent with fairness and judicial economy.
- A court may deny offensive estoppel to prevent “wait and see” tactics, especially when the later plaintiff could have joined the earlier case or consented to consolidation.
- Litigation conduct affecting joinder or consolidation can be decisive in determining whether offensive issue preclusion is equitable.

## Conclusion

Iowa permitted offensive nonmutual issue preclusion as a doctrinal matter but refused to apply it where later plaintiffs chose separate litigation and opposed consolidation, making it unfair to bind the defendant to an earlier adverse finding on negligence and causation.


Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1981)