Carl collides with Veronica on the highway, causing Veronica to fly through her windshield and suffer serious physical injuries. Veronica sues Carl in Alabama federal court for negligence. Carl responds by alleging Veronica's contributory negligence based on the fact that the collision occurred at 11 p.m. and Veronica was operating her vehicle without her lights turned on. Assume Alabama is a contributory negligence state where the plaintiff's negligence will serve as a complete bar to relief.

Before submitting the case to the jury, the judge instructs it that it must return a verdict in favor of the defendant (Carl) either if they find that the defendant was not negligent at all or if they find that the plaintiff (Veronica) was negligent in failing to have her lights on. The jury returns a general verdict in favor of Carl.

In a subsequent case in Mississippi federal court, Carl sues Veronica for negligence for causing his injuries in the same collision. He asserts the previous action as barring Veronica from denying her own negligence and as barring her from asserting Carl's negligence. Veronica responds by asserting the previous action as barring Carl's claim entirely. Which of these assertions of preclusion, if any, have merit?