Mother’s Case Challenging Son’s Settlement Following Workplace Injury Not Barred By Res Judicata

In a case evaluating whether a seaman’s second personal injury suit against a barge owner was precluded on the grounds of res judicata, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that the suit was not precluded where the plaintiff in the second suit attacked the validity of the settlement in the first suit.  The court explained that such attacks create an issue of material fact sufficient to prelude summary judgment.

In the second case, a mother sued a barge owner on her son’s behalf, seeking compensation for injuries he suffered aboard an inland barge.  Prior to the mother’s suit, her son had filed an action in the same court alleging the same claims.  The son’s action settled, and the court dismissed the suit in 2012.  The mother brought her subsequent action in 2014.

The barge owner challenged the second suit on the grounds of res judicata, arguing that the second suit was precluded by the settlement and dismissal of the first suit.  In response, the mother argued that summary judgment was inappropriate, asserting that at the time of the previous settlement her son was without legal counsel and medical advice.  Further, she alleged that due to traumatic brain injuries, he was incompetent at the time of the settlement.  The court explained that where a plaintiff attacks the validity of a settlement, and those arguments establish the existence of unresolved issues of fact, summary judgment is precluded.