Clark v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 20 April 1959
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Clive H. CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maurice HENDERSON and Josephine Henderson, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 5689.

Page 834

337 P.2d 834

169 Cal.App.2d 731

Clive H. CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maurice HENDERSON and Josephine Henderson, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 5689.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

April 20, 1959.

Charles E. Ogle, Morro Bay, for appellant.

Maddox, Abercrombie, Kloster & Jacobus, Visalia, for respondents.

MUSSELL, Justice.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell from a horse owned by the defendants. The accident occurred on March 18, 1956, and the complaint was filed on June 20, 1957. It is alleged in the complaint, among other things, that a confidential relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants; that after plaintiff's injury the defendants admitted liability therefor and represented to plaintiff and his wife that defendants were abundantly insured and 'that their insurance protected the defendants from claims arising from injuries of the type and nature suffered by plaintiff, and that the defendants would see that the plaintiff was adequately recompensed for both his general and special damages caused by plaintiff's injury'; that defendants assured plaintiff on five different dates that 'an adequate settlement would be forthcoming'; that because of the confidential relationship of the parties and because of plaintiff's mental condition, plaintiff relied upon the defendants' promise of a settlement until immediately before the institution of this suit, and for that reason did not commence this suit within one year from the date of plaintiff's injury. That the purpose of the defendants' assurances of a settlement made to plaintiff and to plaintiff's wife was to lull the plaintiff into a false sense of security so as to cause the plaintiff to postpone the commencement of this action until after one year after the date of plaintiff's injury. Defendants in their answer denied generally the allegations of the complaint, alleged contributory negligence, unavoidable accident, assumption of risk and the statute of limitations. A jury was selected to try the cause but upon motion of plaintiff's counsel it was excused and the issue of estoppel and the defense of the statute of limitations was tried before the court.

Plaintiff within a few days after falling from the horse owned by the defendants was examined by a physician who took x-rays and reported that plaintiff had a fracture of the third vertebra, chronic cervical sprain, and that his tendons and nerves were probably bruised from the fall. Plaintiff testified that for the first few days after the accident he did not think must about it because he 'figured' that it was mostly soreness and that he would get over it; that for approximately three weeks he did nothing and then worked with his men building a house; that he continued his activities up until September and shortly thereafter began to deteriorate both mentally and physically.

In May, 1956, Mr. McCullough, an insurance adjuster for the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, defendants' insurance carrier, visited plaintiff and his wife and explained the medical coverage and public liability provisions of the policy issued to defendants. He told plaintiff and his wife that the insurance company would pay up to $500 on the medical bills of plaintiff incurred within one year following the accident; that the insurance company, on behalf of the Hendersons, was denying liability for the accident and would not pay anything but the medical bills. He prepared a statement relating to the accident, which plaintiff read and signed. In December, 1956, following a letter from plaintiff to the insurance company, Mr. Celse, a claims representative of the company, talked on the telephone to Mrs. Clark. She demanded consideration for lost wages and other damages and Celse told her that the insurance company had always denied liability and continued to deny liability for the accident; that the company would pay the medical bills up to $500 but no more, and that if they were not satisfied with this they should obtain counsel.

Plaintiff's wife and defendant Josephine Henderson are sisters and plaintiff testified that the relationship between the two families was very close....