Landers v. Scotton, 73--377
| Decision Date | 24 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--377,73--377 |
| Citation | 34 Colo.App. 387,528 P.2d 931 |
| Parties | Leora V. LANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billie L. SCOTTON, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Taussig & Cobb, John G. Taussig, Jr., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.
Montgomery, Little, Young, Ogilvie & Campbell, Robert R. Montgomery, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff instituted this action against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant's principal defense to the action was that plaintiff was estopped from asserting any claims by reason of her having executed a written general release of all her claims arising out of the accident. After a trial to the court, judgment was entered for defendant. We reverse.
The sole issue presented for review is whether, under the facts of this case, the general release which plaintiff signed and which purported to release all claims as to known and unknown injuries is ineffective as a matter of law, because it was negotiated, executed, and accepted under the mutually mistaken belief that there were no existing injuries which were not already known to both parties.
Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant. The parties stipulated that defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the collision. At trial, the court found: (1) That the injury complained of was caused by the accident; (2) that the release was fairly and openly negotiated by the parties and that the consideration of $600 paid for the release was adequate under the circumstances known to the parties at the time of its execution; (3) that the injury complained of and for which plaintiff seeks damages was completely unknown to the parties at the time of execution of the release; and (4) that, therefore, the parties executed the release under the mutually mistaken belief that there were no injuries other than those of which the parties had knowledge. The court also found that plaintiff had incurred medical expenses in the amount of $2,076.99 and had sustained in addition $3,500 for pain, suffering and permanent disability. These findings of fact are not disputed by the parties. The court then concluded, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover these damages because the prior release was valid and enforceable.
In order to set aside a general release on the grounds of mutual mistake, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scotten v. Landers
...Jr., Boulder, for respondent. LEE, Justice. Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the court of appeals in Landers v. Scotten, 34 Colo.App. 387, 528 P.2d 931. We affirm the judgment of the court of Petitioner, Billie L. Scotten, was successful in the trial court in defending again......