Similar harms that occur to the same primary right at different times raise separate causes of action. So a judgment in a prior action arising from a flood’s destruction of the land under an easement was not claim preclusive of a claim for additional erosion caused by a later flood at the same location. However, the prior judgment was issue preclusive insofar as it determined the extent and location of the easement. That the prior judgment was legally incorrect is not a circumstance that brings the case within the manifest injustice exception to issue preclusion.