Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 29 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-5914.,4-5914. |
| Citation | 139 S.W.2d 404 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORPORATION et al. v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, White County; E. M. Pipkin, Judge.
Action by Henry Reed Hamilton against the Mississippi River Fuel Corporation and others for injuries sustained while in the employ of the named defendant. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed and dismissed.
Harry Neelly, of Searcy, and Buzbee, Harrison, Buzbee & Wright, of Little Rock, for appellants.
Roth & Taylor and Yingling & Yingling, all of Searcy, for appellee.
On September 26, 1937, appellee was in the temporary employment of appellant as a casual laborer. The appellant operates a pipe-line for the transportation of natural gas through the State of Arkansas and through White County, with a pumping plant at West Point in said county. It became necessary to do some extra work around its pumping plant at West Point and appellant hired for temporary employment appellee and a number of others living in that vicinity.
Some of these employees had made an excavation around a pressure or header tank which is about 16 inches in diameter and 14 feet long. The ends of this tank were welded in, and on the west thereof a pipe was welded to the end and this pipe connected with another pipe by means of bolts passing through flanges with a gasket between the flanges. A leak of gas was discovered at this joint where the gasket was, and the employees were ordered out of the pit until the gas pressure was shut off. This was on Friday afternoon and they were ordered to report back on Sunday morning at 6:30, which they did. Appellee and three others went to work about this tank, not knowing that the pressure had not been shut off, and a short time later, the west end of the tank blew out, causing some injuries to appellee and the others. Appellee got some dirt or sand in his eyes and some skin abrasions on his arm and leg. He and two others were taken to the hospital of Dr. Porter Rogers of Searcy. He did not want to stay in the hospital because he didn't think he was sufficiently injured, but did stay one night and until noon the following day, when he was discharged by Dr. Rogers, who told him he thought he was all right, and thought he could go back to work in a day or two. He said he didn't want to spend the night in the hospital and told them he was not hurt. He went back to work for appellant after being off three or four days and worked for it as long as the job lasted without making any complaint as to his condition.
On October 8, 1937, he made a settlement with appellant through its superintendent, acting for the insurance carrier, for a payment to him of $16, covering four days' loss of time, and signed a written release, in which he acknowledged receipt of said sum of money, and that he released and forever discharged appellant, its agents, servants and all other persons "from any and all actions, claims and demands whatsoever which claimant now has or may hereafter have on account of or arising out of the accident, casualty or event which happened on or about the 26th day of September, 1937, including those consequences thereof which may hereafter develop as well as those which have already developed or are now apparent". It was further provided therein that he (claimant) "warrants that no promise or agreement not herein expressed has been made to claimant; that in executing this release claimant is not relying upon any statement or representation made by the party or parties hereby released or said party's or party's agents, servants or physicians concerning the nature, extent or duration of the injuries and/or damages * * *, but is relying solely upon his own judgment; * * * and that before signing and sealing this release claimant has fully informed himself of its contents and meaning and executed it with full knowledge thereof".
On June 27, 1938, appellee filed this action against appellants to recover damages for injuries to his eyes and for injuries to his nervous system which is termed traumatic neurosis. The negligence charged was in failing to exercise ordinary care to furnish him a reasonably safe place in which to work. Appellants defended on a number of grounds, including the release above set out. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against appellants in the sum of $5,000, and this appeal followed.
In view of the fact that we have reached the conclusion that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for appellants on their request so to do, because of said release, it becomes unnecessary to discuss other assignments which may be equally meritorious.
Appellee is 25 years of age and appears to be a young man of average intelligence. He testified very frankly about the execution of the release and that he understood its provisions. He knew he was releasing and acquitting appellants for all injuries presently suffered and all that might subsequently develop. He testified that he went in to see Mr. Baum in his office in West Point who told him he had the release and wanted him to sign it; that Mr. Baum told him to read it over, which he did, and he didn't want to sign it right then, but Baum told him it had to be signed that afternoon. Appellee said: "I told him I would go and talk to my dad and come back in the morning and let him know; that I didn't want to jump up and and do it without studying it over, and he said it had to be signed that day and I said I wanted to work and he said it had to be signed if I worked." He further testified that at the time he signed the release he had not had advice from any physician other than Dr. Rogers, who told him he ought to be able to go to work and be all right in a short time. He said that he told Mr. Baum that fellows that was in the army that got shell shocked might be affected years afterwards. As far as he knew then he had no permanent injury. He says that for some month or more after the accident the explosion did not seem to bother him, but later it did affect him, causing him to have bad dreams about working at this place, had loss of appetite and sleep. Finally he went to see a doctor about a month later. He is now afflicted with nervousness, but is and has been most of the time employed and making more money than he was at the time of the injury.
He made no complaint to Dr. Rogers of any nervous injury and in fact had no such injury at the time Dr. Rogers examined him or admitted him to or discharged him from the hospital, and did not have for at least a month or more afterwards. Dr. Rogers did not tell him that he would have no after affects from the explosion, such as a shell shocked veteran might have, and that matter was never discussed between them. The suggestion that he might have nervous trouble of this kind later was made by himself to Mr. Baum at the time they were discussing the matter of his signing the release. This shows that he did not rely and could not have relied on any statement or assurance of Dr. Rogers, a question the court erroneously submitted to the jury in instructions 5, 6 and 8 for appellee. Moreover the written release specifically says that he is "not relying upon any statement or representation made by the * * * physicians concerning the nature, extent or duration of the injuries * * * but is relying solely upon his own judgment". He testified very frankly that he read this release before signing it and understood it. On cross-examination he was asked and answered as follows:
A. I didn't know it, I said it might affect me.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Hamilton
...139 S.W.2d 404 200 Ark. 475 MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORPORATION v. HAMILTON 4-5914Supreme Court of ArkansasApril 29, 1940 ... Appeal ... from White Circuit Court; E. M. Pipkin, Judge; reversed ... ... Judgment reversed and cause dismissed ... Harry ... Neelly and Buzbee, Harrison, Buzbee & ... ...