Farrington v. Harlem Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 21 February 1939 |
| Citation | 280 N.Y. 1,19 N.E.2d 657 |
| Parties | FARRINGTON v. HARLEM SAV. BANK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by John Farrington against the Harlem Savings Bank. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, First Department, 254 App.Div. 848, 6 N.Y.S.2d 366, which affirmed a judgment of the Trial Term dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Samuel H. Henis, of New York City (Joseph B. Kenny, Harry B. Chambers, Harry H. Chambers, and Jack Wasserman, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Chauncey L. Grant and Walter L. Glenney, both of New York City, for respondent.
In this action to recover damages for personal injuries growing out of defendant's negligence, the plaintiff's evidence established a prima facie case. As a defense a general release was introduced in evidence. It is drawn in the broadest terms and in consideration of the payment of thirty dollars purports to release the defendant from all claims for damages, both present and future. At the close of the evidence the trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff was bound by the release. The Appellate Division affirmed, one justice dissenting.
The instrument was drawn and executed four days after the accident. At the time the plaintiff was waiting on customers in a store. He testified that he did not read the instrument and that the claim agent who paid him the thirty dollars stated that the paper was a receipt and that the thirty dollars was to reimburse him for the doctor's bills. The only known injury at the time was a scalp wound and some bruises. Immediately after the injury plaintiff had it dressed by a doctor, who told him to go back to work, which he did. About three weeks later it was discovered that a bone of the left arm had been injured and that he was suffering from a fracture of the humerus. He has lost the use of the arm and the fingers of the left hand are without feeling.
At the time of the alleged settlement neither the claim agent nor the plaintiff knew of any injury except the superficial injuries referred to. No doubt the plaintiff had a perfect right to agree to settle for the injuries which were known and for all other injuries which might result, and such an agreement would be binding upon him no matter how serious the result of the injuries might thereafter turn out to be, provided the agreement was fairly and knowingly made.
The complaint having been dismissed, the question here presented is whether there was any evidence that the plaintiff was induced by fraud or mistake to sign the instrument. We believe there was evidence which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc.
...is not a recent one, nor is its application to known injuries recent. The test was used as early as 1939 ( Farrington v. Harlem Savings Bank, 280 N.Y. 1, 19 N.E.2d 657 (1939)) and has been consistently used for decades to apply to known as well as unknown injuries. Keefe, Validity of Releas......
-
Gleason v. Guzman
...97, 378 P.2d 579, 28 Cal.Rptr. 307 (1963); Hall v. Strom Constr. Co., 368 Mich. 253, 118 N.W.2d 281 (1962); Farrington v. Harlem Sav. Bank, 280 N.Y. 1, 19 N.E.2d 657 (1939); Doyle v. Teasdale, 263 Wis. 238, 57 N.W.2d 381 (1953). The assumption here is that rescission must be based on mistak......
-
Vondera v. Chapman
... ... K.C.W. Ry. Co., 142 Mo.App. 234, 125 S.W. 1190; ... Farrington v. Harlem Sav. Bank, 280 N.Y. 1, 19 ... N.E.2d 657; Hume v. American-West ... ...
-
Barnard v. Cedar Rapids City Cab Co.
...damages to person or property without resort to the courts.' The Missouri court then quoted, with approval, from Farrington v. Harlem Savings Bank, 280 N.Y. 1, 19 N.E.2d 657: 'No doubt the plaintiff had a prefect right to agree to settle for the injuries which were known and for all other i......