Tenneco Oil Co. v. Templin
Georgia Court of Appeals
201 Ga. App. 30 (1991)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Douglas Lynn Bullman and his then fiancé (wife) were involved in a multicar accident and sued multiple defendants, including Tenneco Oil Co. (Tenneco) and one of its employees (Templin), in a tort action in a Georgia state court. For the claims asserted against Tenneco and Templin, the jury awarded damages to the wife but nothing to Bullman, because he was found partially at fault for the accident. Tenneco (plaintiff) then brought a separate action for contribution against Bullman and Templin (defendants) in a Georgia state court. Tenneco argued that because the three of them were joint tortfeasors, they should bear a pro rata share of the total judgment in the first action. Bullman and Templin filed summary-judgment motions to dismiss the contribution claims. They alleged that Tenneco’s contribution claims were compulsory counter- and cross-claims in the first action and, thus, under the doctrine of res judicata, the claims were barred. The trial court noted that these claims raised issues of first impression in Georgia regarding the res judicata effect of a tort claim judgment on later-asserted contribution claims. The trial court granted Bullman and Templin’s motions for summary judgment. Tenneco appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.