Benesh v. Garvais

• Decision Date: 16 November 1945
• Docket Number: No. 34003.,34003.
• Citation: 221 Minn. 1,20 N.W.2d 532
• Parties: BENESH v. GARVAIS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

20 N.W.2d 532

221 Minn. 1

BENESH v. GARVAIS et al.

No. 34003.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 16, 1945.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Paul W. Guilford, Judge.

Action by Norberg G. Benesh against Sadie Garvais and others for a declaratory judgment as to the legal effect of a general release in favor of Minneapolis Street Railway Company executed by named defendant releasing all her claims for injuries or damages arising out of a street car accident as respects plaintiff's liability for alleged negligence in treatment of such injuries. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff named defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Theodore W. Thomson, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Snyder, Gale, Hoke, Richards & Janes and Nathan Cobb, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.

MAGNEY, Justice.

Action was brought for a declaratory judgment on the facts as presented. The court made findings favorable to plaintiff. Judgment was entered, and defendant Sadie Garvais appeals.

On October 18, 1941, defendant Garvais was injured while alighting from a street car. She employed plaintiff in this case, Norberg G. Benesh, a physician and surgeon, to treat her for her injuries. These treatments were completed in 1941. In such treatment Benesh used an electrical apparatus. Miss Garvais claims that on or about November 11, 1941, she received burns from the apparatus.

On January 19, 1942, Miss Garvais commenced an action against defendant Minneapolis Street Railway Company in which she alleged that her injuries were sustained by reason of its negligence. Trial of the case began May 14, 1942. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $300. She claimed inadequacy of the verdict, but her motion for a new trial was denied September 14, 1942. On November 23, 1942, she and the company entered into a stipulation by the terms of which she released and discharged the street railway company "from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, for all injuries or damages, whether at this time known or unknown, arising or to grow out of the said accident referred to above." The parties stipulated for entry of judgment for $328.25. This sum represented the face amount of the verdict, plus interest then due on the verdict, plus costs and disbursements to which Miss Garvais was entitled. Judgment was entered in accordance with the terms of the stipulation. It was paid. Satisfaction of the judgment, executed by Miss Garvais, was filed December 11, 1942.

Neither in the pleadings in the street railway case nor in the evidence was there any mention of the burns which Miss Garvais claims she suffered through the negligence of plaintiff here. On June 5, 1942, after the verdict in the street railway case had been rendered, but while that suit was still pending, she brought a malpractice action against plaintiff herein. In his answer in that action, he admitted that he undertook to treat Miss Garvais with an electrical apparatus, but denied that he did so negligently. After the judgment in the street railway case had been paid, Benesh was permitted to interpose an amended and supplemental answer alleging that, by reason of the execution of the general release by Miss Garvais and the entry and satisfaction of the judgment, her whole cause of action had been discharged and that Benesh had been relieved from any liability in the malpractice action. Miss Garvais, by means of various proceedings to which Benesh was not a party, has attempted to avoid the effect of her general release. Benesh thereupon brought this action under the Declaratory Judgments Act for a determination of the rights of the parties.

The trial court was of the opinion, and so held, that the general release executed on November 23, 1942, by Sadie Garvais in favor of the Minneapolis Street Railway Company is a valid release for a good consideration of all her claims for injuries or damages arising or to grow out of the street car accident, and that the legal effect thereof was to discharge her whole cause of action and thereby to release Benesh from any liability on account of any occurrences in the course of his treatment of her injury. It also held that the satisfaction of the judgment entered on December 1, 1942, in her favor and against the street railway company had the same legal effect.

In several cases this court has considered substantially the same question raised by this appeal. In Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346, 351, 113 N.W. 690, 692, the rule was stated as follows: "* * * where one person is injured by the wrong or negligence of another, and he himself is not negligent in the selection of a medical attendant, the wrongdoer is liable for all the proximate results of his own act, although the consequences of the injury would have been less serious than they proved to be if the attendant had exercised proper professional skill and care. Watson on Damages, § 136."

This rule was followed and applied in Fields v. Mankato Electric Traction Co. 116 Minn. 218, 133 N.W. 577; Pederson v. Eppard, 181 Minn. 47, 231 N.W. 393; Smith v. Mann, 184 Minn. 485, 239 N.W. 223; Ahlsted v. Hart, 201 Minn. 82, 275 N.W. 404; Serr v. Biwabik Concrete Aggregate Co., 202 Minn. 165, 186, 278 N.W. 355, 366, 117 A.L.R. 1009;...