Hart v. Traders & General Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1945
• Docket Number: No. A-534.,A-534.
• Citation: 189 S.W.2d 493
• Parties: HART v. TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 493

189 S.W.2d 493

HART v. TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO.

No. A-534.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 11, 1945.

Rehearing Denied October 10, 1945.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. H. Hart against the Traders & General Insurance Company to set aside a compromise settlement agreement approved by the Industrial Accident Board and to recover workmen's compensation as an employee of the Dallas Nash Company, Inc. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, 185 S.W.2d 605, and plaintiff brings error.

Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

Lee J. Taylor and Will R. Saunders, both of Dallas, for petitioner.

John W. Miller, Dan P. Johnston, and Lightfoot & Robertson, all of Dallas, for respondent.

SLATTON, Commissioner.

J. H. Hart was employed by the manager of Dallas Nash Company, Inc., to build a fence. The material was purchased from Interstate Materials Company, and while Hart was cutting the material with which to build the fence on the premises of the Interstate Materials Company there was an accident, resulting in an injury to Hart's eye. The Traders & General Insurance Company was the insurance carrier of the Dallas Nash Company, Inc., and thereafter made a compromise settlement agreement with Hart and paid him the sum of $175. This suit is to set aside that compromise settlement agreement and to recover compensation for a specific injury for the loss of an eye. In Hart's pleadings it is shown that on the day of the accident Hart executed a release covering the same accident to J. T. Hollis and the Interstate Materials Company and received the sum of $50. A trial before a jury resulted in a peremptory instruction by the trial court of a verdict in favor of the insurance carrier. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals. 185 S.W.2d 605. This court granted Hart's application for writ of error.

The first point questions the holding of the lower courts to the effect that at the time of receiving his injury Hart was an independent contractor and not an employee of the insured, Dallas Nash Company, Inc., as a matter of law. Under our view of the case that the judgment of the lower courts may be sustained upon another theory, hereinafter to be stated, it is not necessary to discuss the first point.

According to the pleadings and proof, Hart executed a release in favor of J. T. Hollis and the Interstate Materials Company "of and from any and all actions * * * claims, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses and compensation on account of any and all * * injuries resulting * * from an accident that occurred on or about the 31st day of January, 1941."

The release recites that Hart received $50 in consideration for the execution and delivery of the release. The parties to the release, aside from Hart, are not parties to this suit, hence in this action the release must be accepted for what it purports to be. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Brandon, 126 Tex. 636, 89 S.W.2d 982.

The evidence shows that the accident covered by the release is the same accident as to which Hart and the respondent entered into a compromise settlement agreement wherein Hart received from the respondent the sum of $175. The settlement agreement last above referred to was approved by the Industrial Accident Board. The compromise settlement agreement is sought to be set aside in this suit and Hart seeks to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law for a specific injury to his eye as a result of the same accident...