Kilmartin v. Chi., B. & Q. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1908 |
| Citation | 137 Iowa 64,114 N.W. 522 |
| Parties | KILMARTIN v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; M. C. Matthews, Judge.
Action to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff while being transported as a passenger by the defendant railroad. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.Woodward & Lees, J. W. Kintzinger, and Longueville & Longueville, for appellant.
Henry Michel and William Graham, for appellee.
Plaintiff, while riding as a passenger in a car of defendant, had her legs scalded below the knees, by steam from a bursting steam-heating pipe beside the seat occupied by her, and thus suffered the injuries for which she seeks to recover damages. No complaint is made as to the sufficiency of the evidence, or the correctness of the instructions under which the jury found negligence on the part of the defendant resulting in plaintiff's injuries; but defendant pleaded a settlement, which the plaintiff sought to impeach by allegation and proof that such settlement was procured by false and fraudulent representations misleading and deceiving plaintiff with reference to the extent of her injuries with the purpose and design of inducing her to receive a less amount by way of compensation than that to which she was reasonably entitled under the circumstances. The sole question for determination, although presented in various ways, is whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the settlement was procured by false and fraudulent representations on the part of the employés of defendant.
The settlement was evidenced by a writing, signed by plaintiff after being read over to her, in which it is recited that in consideration of the payment of $50, the receipt of which is acknowledged, the defendant was released and forever discharged “of and from all debts, suits, causes of action, claims, and demands, whatsoever either at law or in equity, which I [plaintiff] now have, or to which I may hereafter become entitled, on account of the circumstances above set out [personal injuries sustained by reason of the bursting of the steam pipe above sufficiently recited], including damages not yet ascertained or developed, if any there shall be, as well as those now known.” The circumstances attending the execution of this instrument of release, as the evidence for plaintiff tended to show them to have been, were briefly as follows: The injury to plaintiff was received while she was a passenger on defendant's train between Beardstown and Monmouth, Ill., her destination being Dubuque, in this state. At Monmouth plaintiff left the train, and was met in the station by a physician, summoned by the defendant's agent, who had been advised by the conductor of the accident to plaintiff. By the direction of the agent, on plaintiff's request, she was taken to a hotel where the physician dressed her wounds and gave her some medicine. This was on the afternoon of the 6th of October. The same physician visited plaintiff the next day in the forenoon, again dressing the wounds, and was consulted as to whether she could proceed forthwith to her destination. He advised her that while it would be better for her to wait another day, still, in view of her desire to reach home and allay the anxiety of her relatives, she might proceed with safety. In response to questions asked by her, the physician said that it would take the wounds 10 days to heal, and that she was suffering more from shock than from the burns, which he said were superficial. In the afternoon plaintiff was visited by the claim agent of defendant, who had been advised by telegram the preceding day as to the accident, and had come promptly to Monmouth by train. This agent was accompanied by the local agent of the defendant. After two interviews, in which the extent of plaintiff's injuries was discussed, and the opinion was expressed by the claim agent that the burns were superficial and would be headed in 10 days the claim agent induced the plaintiff to settle for $50, and sign the written release on the receipt of that amount, which was paid, telling her at the same time he was only authorized to pay her $40, but that he would give her the remaining $10 out of his own pocket.
The false and fraudulent representations relied upon to defeat this settlement were the false statements of the physician and the claim agent that the burns were superficial and would heal in 10 days; whereas, in fact, they were more serious then as represented, and did not heal for more than two months and left permanent scars, which continued to be more or less troublesome to plaintiff until the trial of the case, which was about 18 months after the injury. The circumstances under which the settlement was made, plaintiff still being nervous and excited as a result of the injury, and without other advice than that of her niece who was about 18 years of age, and the further fact that plaintiff, a farmer's wife without much experience in traveling by railroad, was incompetent to transact such business and incapable of appreciating her own rights, and, in general, the inadequacy of the compensation paid, are insisted upon also as reasons why the settlement should not be allowed to stand. No complaint is made of the instructions, so far as the jury was advised, that the settlement and release constituted a complete defense, unless obtained by fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation of the agent or the physician, and that the burden was on the plaintiff to show such fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. As no conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff is alleged or shown, we may properly consider separately the different facts and circumstances relied upon in determining whether there were false and fraudulent representations, and whether the plaintiff was so far incapacitated from or incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the settlement as that she should be relieved from the binding effect thereof.
There is no contention on the part of plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial