Eubanks v. CSX Transp., Inc., A96A1211

• Decision Date: 29 October 1996
• Docket Number: No. A96A1211,A96A1211
• Citation: 478 S.E.2d 387,223 Ga.App. 616
• Parties: , 96 FCDR 3930 EUBANKS et al. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 387

478 S.E.2d 387

223 Ga.App. 616, 96 FCDR 3930

EUBANKS et al. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al.

No. A96A1211.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 29, 1996.

Reconsiderations Denied Nov. 20, 1996.

Certiorari Denied March 7, 1997.

Burge & Wettermark, James H. Wettermark, Birmingham, AL, for appellants.

Fulcher, Hagler, Reed, Hanks & Harper, James W. Purcell, and Dye, Tucker, Everitt, Wheale & Long, Duncan D. Wheale, Augusta, for appellees.

ANDREWS, Judge.

Augusta Cab Company, Inc. (Augusta Cab) was transporting a group of railroad workers employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) when the van containing the employees was involved in an accident. Ted Eubanks, one of the CSX employees in the van, sued CSX and Augusta Cab for injuries he suffered in the accident. He alleged that the accident occurred during the scope of his employment for CSX; that the accident was caused by the negligence of Augusta Cab and that Augusta Cab was operating the van as an agent of CSX. In the same complaint, Eubanks' wife also brought a loss of consortium action against Augusta Cab.

CSX and Augusta Cab moved for summary judgment on all the claims contending that, after the van accident, Eubanks and his wife settled the present claims and executed a release discharging CSX and its agents from liability on all claims and injuries which occurred prior to the release. The trial court granted the summary judgment motions finding that Eubanks and his wife released all claims arising out of the van accident. Eubanks and his wife appeal claiming the release they signed after the van accident was intended to apply only to the settlement of a job-related foot injury suffered by Eubanks prior to the van accident and did not release any claims arising out of the van accident. They claim the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence which showed there was a mutual mistake of material fact affecting the validity of the release as it applied to the van accident.

The van accident giving rise to the injuries at issue in the present claims occurred on March 10, 1990. Medical evidence showed that, as a result of physical and psychological injuries he suffered in the 1990 van accident, Eubanks underwent years of continuing medical treatment and has been unable to return to work for CSX. Prior to the van accident, Eubanks suffered a foot injury in 1988 in the scope of his employment with CSX which caused him to miss five to seven months of work.

On or about July 19, 1990, Eubanks and his wife, unrepresented by counsel, met with a CSX claims representative and signed a release agreement in favor of CSX and its agents for a settlement payment of $52,763. The agreement recited the payment and specifically stated that there was a settlement and release of all claims arising out of the 1988 foot injury. The release also showed a deduction from the $52,763 payment for a $19,910 advance made by CSX to Eubanks. Eubanks' deposition testimony provided evidence that the advance was made to him prior to the van accident while he was disabled due to the 1988 foot injury. Although the release made no specific mention of the van accident, it stated generally that it settled "all claims ... which the undersigned has or might have ... for any and all injuries to [person or property] occurring prior to the date of this settlement and final release, including but not limited to injuries and/or damage arising out of or in any way connected with [the 1988 foot injury]." Based on this language in the release, CSX and Augusta Cab claim the July 1990 release discharged them from liability for all claims arising out of the March 1990 van accident.

1. The parties agree that Eubanks' action against CSX for injuries suffered in the scope of his railroad employment for CSX is controlled by the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). See 45 USC § 51 et seq. In a FELA case, federal law governs substantive issues as to the validity of a release. Dice v. Akron, etc., R. Co., 342 U.S. 359, 361, 72 S.Ct. 312, 314, 96 L.Ed. 398 (1952); Southern R. Co. v. Hogue, 116 Ga.App. 194, 196, 156 S.E.2d 412 (1967), rev'd on other grounds, 390 U.S. 516, 88 S.Ct. 1150, 20 L.Ed.2d 73 (1968). The party attacking the release bears the burden of establishing invalidity, and one method of doing so is to show that both parties to the release were mistaken as to a fact material to the release agreement. Maynard v. Durham, etc., R. Co., 365 U.S. 160, 163, 81 S.Ct. 561, 563, 5 L.Ed.2d 486 (1961); Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 U.S. 625, 68 S.Ct. 296, 92 L.Ed. 242 (1948); see also Fox v. Washburn, 264 Ga. 617, 449 S.E.2d 513 (1994); Fulghum v. Kelly, 255 Ga. 652, 340 S.E.2d 589 (1986).

Eubanks and his wife contend that, despite the general language in the release indicating it applied to all claims occurring prior to the July 1990 settlement and release, they and the CSX claims representative, who witnessed and signed the release agreement for CSX, expressed a mistaken understanding when they signed the agreement that the release and settlement applied only to the 1988 foot injury. Eubanks gave deposition testimony that he met with the claims representative and agreed to discuss settlement of the foot injury claim. He testified that the claims representative explained to him that he calculated a settlement amount for the...