BURDETTE v. CARRIER CORPORATION PART II
Where plaintiff's defamation claim against his former employer, based on alleged statements by one named and other unnamed co employees, was fully resolved on its merits, plaintiff's subsequent defamation claim against same defendant based upon statements allegedly made by other named employees during the period covered by the prior claim was barred under doctrine of claims preclusion because they were raised or could have been raised in the prior action. Issue preclusion barred claim against named employee in second action based on statements made during period covered by first action, where issue of defamatory remarks by "other unnamed employees" was tendered by the pleading in first action and resolved against plaintiff on its merits, but did not bar claim against same employee based on separate statement allegedly made after the period covered by first action. Where trial court in second action erroneously allowed jury to consider alleged statements made by defendant both during and after period covered by first action, and jury returned verdict in favor of plaintiff that did not distinguish among the statements, defendant was entitled to new trial.
Comments on BURDETTE v. CARRIER CORPORATION PART II