Hicks v. Harbison-Walker Co.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1905
• Docket Number: 115
• Citation: 212 Pa. 437,61 A. 958
• Parties: Hicks, Appellant, v. Harbison-Walker Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

61 A. 958

212 Pa. 437

Hicks, Appellant, v. Harbison-Walker Company

No. 115

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 22, 1905

Argued April 20, 1905

Appeal, No. 115, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Huntingdon Co., Sept. Term, 1902, No. 24, on verdict for defendant in case of Joel Hicks v. The Harbison-Walker Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before WOODS, P.J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

When C B. Lukens, a witness for defendant, was on the stand he was asked the following question:

Q. What was said as an inducement for Mr. Hicks to sign this Paper?

Mr. W M. Henderson: That is objected to as not cross-examination.

Mr. Beers: I proposed to ask the witness what was done and said at the time Mr. Hicks signed this paper as an inducement.

Mr. W. M. Henderson: The offer is objected to for the reason that it is not cross-examination; the witness was not asked as to anything that occurred, save the placing of the signature of the plaintiff to the paper and his placing his name upon it as a witness.

The Court: The plaintiff can call the witness for himself. We will sustain the objection and seal a bill of exceptions for plaintiff. [11]

The court charged in part as follows:

[The testimony on the part of the plaintiff reveals the fact that he was called upon while he was at his work and that he was told that he was going to get a donation and that he said he would not sign any paper, release or anything of that kind. Now, gentlemen of the jury, he had an hour or so to consider that, and when he went into the office it was his duty to acquaint himself with the contents of that paper and he intended to and finally did sign.]

He admitted that he signed it but he stated that it was done on account of the representation on the part of the company, because he cannot read. It is the duty of every man when he cannot read to inform himself of the contents of a paper before he signs it. He could have taken it home and looked it over; he could have brought some one in and had it read. It is his duty to acquaint himself with the contents of the paper, he failed to do it; and, gentlemen of the jury, that is binding on him. If any of you gentlemen have been administrators of estates and have settled up the estate, paid the heirs their money and you took a release, would you say because the person who signed that release stated that he did not know that was a release, it would not be binding upon him? [6]

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Errors assigned were (1) in giving binding instructions for defendant; (5, 6) portions of charges as above, quoting them; (11) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions.

We are satisfied that under the evidence with regard to the execution and delivery of the release, the learned trial judge committed no error in instructing the jury to find for the defendant. The assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

L. H. Beers and W. B. Simpson, with them J. R. Simpson, for appellant. -- In case of uneducated, ignorant persons, the burden of showing the fairness of the transaction is thrown upon the person who seeks to obtain the benefit of the contract: Hough v. Hunt, 2 Ohio 495; Hall v. Perkins, 3 Wend. 626; Trambly v. Ricard, 130 Mass. 259; Selden v. Myers, 61 U.S. 506; Ills. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Welch, 52 Ill. 183; Schuylkill Co. v. Copley, 67 Pa. 386; Johnston v. Patterson, 114 Pa. 398; Ettinger v. Jones, 139 Pa. 218; Gibson v. R.R. Co., 164 Pa. 142.

If the contents of the release were misrepresented to the plaintiff, an illiterate man, and it was not read or explained to him, a question of fact was raised, which was for the jury and not the court: McAboy v. Johns, 70 Pa. 9; People's Nat. Gas Co. v. Millbury, 2 Mona. 145; Templeton v. Shakley, 107 Pa. 370.

R. A. Henderson, with him H. L. Henderson and W. M. Henderson, for appellee. -- If a party who can read will not read a deed put before him for execution; or if, being unable to read, will not demand to have it read or explained to him, he is guilty of supine negligence, which is not the subject of protection either in equity or at law: Penna. R.R. Co. v. Shay, 82 Pa. 198; Clayton v. Traction Co., 204 Pa. 536; Greenfield's Estate, 14 Pa. 489; Gibson v. R.R. Co., 164 Pa. 142; Clark v. R.R. Co., 24 Pa.Super. 609; Sylvius v. Kosek, 117 Pa. 67.

Before DEAN, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and ELKIN, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE POTTER:

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant company. The plaintiff was a molder of fire brick, and while so engaged, his duty required him to use the doors of the brick kilns while pushing in trucks loaded with molded brick. On the morning of the accident, in attempting to pull down a door, the counterbalancing weight fell, and struck the plaintiff, causing severe injury. He was unable to work for several weeks, but when able to do so returned, and continued in the employ of the defendant company, at his former occupation. The accident occurred on August 24, 1901, and on December 7, 1901, the superintendent of the works, under instructions, paid the plaintiff $25.00 and took from him a release in full for all damages. The payment was made by means of a check, which the plaintiff took to a store, where he indorsed the check and received the money for it.

Two days afterwards he sent his wife to the superintendent...