If the car owner impleads the intoxicated driver but does not claim for property damage or personal injury, what is the consequence?

In this scenario, when the car owner impleads the intoxicated driver without making a claim for property damage or personal injury, the correct consequence is that they waive the right to sue for those claims later on. This outcome is largely guided by the rules of civil procedure governing joinder and the handling of claims arising from the same occurrence.

The principle behind this is based on the doctrine of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata. When a party has an opportunity to bring all related claims in a single action but fails to do so, they often forfeit the right to later bring those claims in a separate lawsuit. By not including the claims for property damage or personal injury in the original impleader, the car owner effectively chooses not to litigate those aspects of the case at that time, which can lead to a waiver of those claims.

This is significant, especially in situations involving multiple parties or complex facts, as it encourages the comprehensive resolution of disputes in one legal proceeding, avoiding the issues of repetitive litigation and judicial inefficiency. Therefore, by impleading the driver but not asserting claims for damages, the car owner risks losing the ability to seek redress for those damages in any future legal action.