In Finnerty v. Cummings (1933) 132 Cal.App. 48, the mother, as guardian ad litem of her minor daughter, recovered a judgment against defendants Cummings for injuries sustained by the minor in an automobile accident. After being prevented from amending the complaint in the first action to include her own damages, the mother, in a subsequent action, sought to recover for her loss of her daughter's earnings and medical expenses. Cummings' defense of res judicata was denied on grounds that the prior action had not litigated the issue of medical expenses. The Court (Div. One) stated the applicable rules as follows at page 50: "Ordinarily, that is where the usual relationship of parent and child exists in which the parent exercises his right to the child's services and performs his duty to support it, the right to recover for loss of the child's earnings and for medical expenses incurred in treating its injuries belongs to the parent. Where the parent has emancipated the child , or, as guardian in the child's action, by pleading or testimony, waived his right or estopped himself from subsequently asserting it, the child is permitted to recover these items. . . . . If the right to these items was litigated in the first action, of course, since there cannot be a double recovery, the first judgment was a bar to the present action." In affirming the judgment in the second action against Cummings, Justice Gray pointed out at page 51 that since the medical expenses had not been sought by the complaint or litigated in the first action, the mother could properly claim them in the second, and affirmed the judgment. In short, a mother brought an action as guardian ad litem on behalf of her injured child and unsuccessfully attempted to amend the complaint to add her own claim for damages. She prevailed in the lawsuit on behalf of the minor and thereafter filed an action against the same defendant on her own behalf. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the second lawsuit was barred by principles of res judicata. The court explained that the medical expenses had not been sought by the complaint or litigated in the first action. Consequently, the mother could prosecute her claim for her damages in a separate action.