Conklin v. Mo. Pacific Railroad Co.
Citation | 55 S.W.2d 306 |
Decision Date | 16 December 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 30089.,30089. |
Parties | ROSCOE CONKLIN v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. — Hon. E.M. Dearing, Judge.
REVERSED.
Thomas J. Cole and Dearmont & Russell for appellant; D.A. Butler, David A. Smith and Ralph D. Walker of counsel.
The court should have sustained the demurrer to the evidence on the ground the plaintiff had fully settled all claims against the defendant. Wingfield v. Wabash Railroad, 257 Mo. 364; Carroll v. United Rys. Co., 157 Mo. App. 267; Davis v. Ins. Co., 81 Mo. App. 264; Hardister v. St. Louis I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 177 S.W. 981, 119 Ark. 95; Hall v. K.C. So. Ry. Co., 209 S.W. 582; Thompson v. Kansas City C.C. & St. J. Ry. Co., 27 S.W. (2d) 58.
C.O. Inman and C.R. Cravens for respondent.
(1) In passing upon the demurrer to the evidence the appellate court should give plaintiff the benefit of all the evidence favorable to him and of all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State ex rel. Brown v. Trimble, 23 S.W. (2d) 162; Buesching v. Gas Co., 73 Mo. 219; Gratiot v. Railroad Co., 116 Mo. 450; Gettys v. American Car & Fdry. Co., 16 S.W. (2d) 85. (2) Where a party is induced to enter into a contract by the positive and fraudulent misrepresentation of the other party, the misrepresentation is not excusable upon the ground that the injured party might have discovered the fraud by the exercise of diligence. In all business dealings each party has the right to presume honesty and fair dealing on the part of the other. Cottrill v. Krum, 100 Mo. 397; State ex rel. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bland, 23 S.W. (2d) 1029; Christensen v. Koch, 85 Wash. 472, 148 Pac. 585; State ex rel. Brown v. Trimble, 23 S.W. (2d) 162; Rabenau v. Harrell, 213 S.W. 92; Laird v. Keithly, 201 S.W. 1138; 26 C.J. 1145-46-47-48, secs. 65, 66. (3) The alleged statement of the doctor to the effect that plaintiff would be well, etc., in four months, while, perhaps, merely an expression of an opinion, would have been actionable fraud, inasmuch as the doctor did not honestly entertain any such opinion. The statement of the claim agent to plaintiff that the doctor had given him such an opinion, which was untrue, was, therefore, the misrepresentation of a material fact. Yeagor v. St. Joseph Lead Co., 12 S.W. (2d) 520; Green v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 784; Carroll v. United Railways Co., 157 Mo. App. 247; Tattershall v. Yellow Cab Co., 37 S.W. (2d) 659; Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 14; Atchison v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 46 S.W. (2d) 230.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment against it for $12,500, the amount assessed by a jury as the damages sustained by plaintiff as the result of personal injuries. Defendant pleaded a full release in bar of the action. Plaintiff in his reply alleged that the release was obtained through the false and fraudulent representations of defendant's claim agent. Whether the evidence with respect to the matters set up in avoidance of the release was sufficient to make a submissible case for the jury is the decisive question in the case.
Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a machinist. On November 17, 1924, as he was preparing to get down from the cab of an engine, where he had been engaged in making repairs, he was caused through the negligence of other employees of defendant to fall backward to the ground, falling across an iron pipe. The physician who examined him immediately after his fall was unable to discover anything in the way of injury other than sprains and bruises; he advised merely that plaintiff make applications of liniment. Plaintiff thereafter continued in the same work for defendant until on or about the 15th day of April, 1928, a period of more than three and a half years. During that interval he suffered severe pain from time to time — in the lower part of his back and in his left leg, causing him to lose considerable time. His ailment grew progressively worse, causing him to give up work entirely on the date last mentioned. About that time he went to the Missouri Pacific hospital where he was examined by one of its staff surgeons, Dr. Stewart. Dr. Stewart caused X-ray pictures to be made of his back and hips. These disclosed, among other abnormalities, a slight separation of the sacroilliac joint on the left side, a fracture of the transverse process of the twelfth dorsal vertebra and a compression of the fifth lumbar vertebra. Following this disclosure plaintiff's body was put in a plaster paris cast. A few days later, on May 25, 1928, the release in question was executed at the hospital.
Shortly before entering the hospital as a patient plaintiff filed with the claim department of defendant a claim for his injuries, and made one or more visits there in an effort to negotiate a settlement. After his entrance into the hospital, his wife visited defendant's claim agent on one or more occasions, urging an immediate settlement, on the ground of her pressing need of money. Finally they tentatively agreed upon the terms of a settlement and went together to the hospital where her husband was. As to what occurred there and as to other matters touching the execution of the release we will let the plaintiff speak:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heckenkamp v. Kennedy
...as against the machinations of the designedly wicked,' as consonant with the administration of pure justice," Conklin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 331 Mo. 734, 55 S.W.2d 306, 308, "* * * courts will not protect those who, with full opportunity to do so, will not protect themselves. And where th......
-
Dial Temp Air Conditioning Co. v. Faulhaber, 15669
...228 S.W.2d 585; Duncan v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association, Tex.Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 403, 405; Conklin v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 331 Mo. 734, 55 S.W.2d 306. Appellee himself testified that he had told his attorney, Braecklein, about appellants' threat regarding the lease, and Braec......
-
Homolla v. Gluck
...R. Co., 399 Mo. 1025, 99 S.W.2d 82; Powers v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 344 Mo. 432, 66 S.W.2d 840; and Conklin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 331 Mo. 734, 55 S.W.2d 306." We quote the following excerpt from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Poe v. Illinois Central Railroad Co......
-
John T. Brown, Inc. v. Weber Implement & Auto. Co., 43332
...he will not afterwards be heard to complain, for the reason that his own conduct contributed to his injury.' Conklin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 331 Mo. 734, 55 S.W.2d 306, 308(I); Orlann v. Laederich, 338 Mo. 783, 92 S.W.2d 190, 194, 195. Consult Reed v. Cooke, 331 Mo. 507, 55 S.W.2d 275, 278......