Julian v. Zayre Corp., 76-430-A

• Decision Date: 19 July 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-430-A,76-430-A
• Citation: 120 R.I. 494,388 A.2d 813
• Parties: Diago JULIAN et al. v. ZAYRE CORPORATION. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 813

388 A.2d 813

120 R.I. 494

Diago JULIAN et al. v. ZAYRE CORPORATION.

No. 76-430-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 19, 1978.

[120 R.I. 500] Pucci & Goldin, Samuel A. Olevson, Providence, for plaintiffs.

Carroll, Kelly & Murphy, Dennis S. Baluch, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

BEVILACQUA, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs, Diago Julian and his mother, Marion Julian, have appealed in this civil matter from summary judgments entered in favor of the defendants, Zayre Corporation (Zayre) and Leisure Dynamics, Incorporated (Leisure). The plaintiffs had initiated an action for damages against Leisure for design negligence and against Zayre for breach of warranty. The action concerned a plastic tricycle called an "Eldon Cheetah" that was manufactured by Leisure and purchased by the plaintiffs from Zayre.

On October 7, 1974 Diago, 8 years old at the time, was riding on the tricycle in the driveway of his home in Fall River, Massachusetts. As he rode out onto an abutting street, Diago was struck by a motor vehicle owned by Muriel L. Reynolds and operated by Pierre Bouchard. As a result of the collision Diago suffered multiple leg and foot fractures which required extensive surgery.

Subsequently Diago and his mother brought a negligence action against Muriel Reynolds and Pierre Bouchard based upon the personal injuries suffered by Diago and the resulting medical expenses encountered by Marion. A settlement was achieved between plaintiffs and the insurer of Reynolds and Bouchard, The Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial Union). The settlement, in the sum of $34,000, $28,000 of which was for Diago's claim and $6,000 of which was for Marion's claim, was submitted to the Superior Court for approval in a friendly suit. The court approved the settlement and entered a judgment accordingly.

As part of the settlement and on behalf of Diago, plaintiff Marion Julian executed and signed a Parent's Release and Indemnity Agreement with Commercial Union that covenanted to hold harmless from any further liability Reynolds, Bouchard, Commercial Union, and "any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility or liability * * * from any and all claims * * * actions and causes of action, belonging to the said minor or to the undersigned" as a result of the accident of October 7. There is no evidence that this release was ever approved by a court.

In January 1976 plaintiffs instituted the present action against defendants Zayre and Leisure. Based upon the release defendants claimed that they were discharged from any liability arising out of the accident. On these grounds they moved for and were granted summary judgments. The plaintiffs appealed from those judgments.

The plaintiffs contend that the release signed and executed by Marion Julian on her own behalf and that of her minor child Diago was not valid and binding as to the latter and therefore could not operate as a bar to any cause of action belonging to the child. If this were true, then the summary judgments would have been erroneously granted. In rebuttal defendants argue that the interests of Diago were fully protected by the validly executed release and that Marion Julian could, by signing the release as parent and guardian of Diago, bind the minor to the terms of the release and thereby with reference to the incident in question extinguish any claim Diago might have.

At the trial below, defendants' motions for summary judgment under Super.R.Civ.P. 56 raised the release as a defense to plaintiff's claim. In granting the motions, the trial justice in effect found that, based on the pleadings, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On review we must test such a finding in a light most favorable to the opposing party. Marandola v. Hillcrest Builders, Inc., 102 R.I. 46, 227 A.2d 785 (1967). At issue in this appeal then is whether, given the fact that there is no material issue that the release was executed, as a matter of law such a release compels entry of judgment for defendants. With reference to the claims of Diago, we believe it does not, while with reference to the claims of Marion we believe that it does.

The plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that the general release clause in the agreement discharged the liability of All persons and corporations. Thus there is no issue before us as to whether such general clauses are valid to release unnamed persons who are not parties to the release and indemnity agreement. The sole issue we address is whether a release executed by a parent in settlement of all possible causes of action of a minor child arising out of a named event is binding upon the minor.

A release in a personal injury case is a contract. We have stated that persons of legal age and capacity must stand by any covenants they enter in effectuating a release. Boccarossa v. Watkins, 112 R.I. 551, 313 A.2d 135 (1973). We are called upon, however, to determine whether a person not of legal age can be bound by covenants in a release entered on his behalf by one of his parents.

As a general rule a parent cannot compromise or release a minor child's cause of action...