Nason v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1908 |
| Citation | 118 N.W. 751,140 Iowa 533 |
| Parties | WILLIAM W. NASON, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff's person. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Carroll Wright, J. L. Parrish, and Saunders & Stuart, for appellant.
Reed & Robertson, for appellee.
The plaintiff, employed in the railway mail service, was injured in a collision on the defendant's road, and brought action to recover damages, alleging that his injury was occasioned by the defendant's negligence, and without fault on his part. The defendant denied the allegation of negligence and pleaded a settlement made with plaintiff after the accident, and a written release by him of any and all claims and rights of action against defendant on account of said injury. In reply the plaintiff alleges that the settlement and release so pleaded were obtained from him while he was weak, sick and suffering from his injuries and unfitted entirely to exercise judgment and deliberation being induced thereto by the fraud and misrepresentations of the defendant's claim agent and surgeon, and without consideration. The court having refused to direct a verdict for the defendant, the jury found in the plaintiff's favor, assessing damages in the sum of $ 1,266. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and, judgment being entered on the verdict, it appeals.
The one question urged upon our attention by counsel is the effect to be given to the written agreement of settlement and discharge, the execution of which is not denied by plaintiff. That a person who has suffered injury through the negligence of another may for a valid consideration effectually release and discharge his right of action for damages is of course too elementary to call for argument or citation of authorities. This counsel for appellee concedes, but contends that the evidence disclosed facts from which the jury could properly find, and evidently did find, that the release here pleaded was obtained by the fraud, imposition and misrepresentation of the appellant and its agents, and therefore he is not estopped or precluded to assert and enforce his claim for a recovery.
The accident in which the appellee was injured occurred on June 14, 1906. While sustaining bruises upon his head and body his limbs were not broken, and the most serious complaint made by him is that the injuries so received, externally and internally, culminated in a nervous disease or weakness known as "neurasthenia." After getting out of the wreck he attempted to walk, but fell in a fainting or unconscious condition, and was placed in a sleeper and returned to his home in Council Bluffs, where he was met by the company's surgeons. He was still unable to walk without aid, and the surgeons, or one of them, continued for some time to attend him in his home, but informed him that his injuries were not of a very serious character. He continued in bed for a period of about ten days, after which he was up a part of the time, but had to lie down frequently. He complained of dizziness and suffered considerable pain. According to his statement, he did no business for a period of five or six weeks. During the earlier part of this period the company's surgeon visited appellee daily, but thereafter at less frequent intervals, and the evidence tends to show that such visits had ceased prior to July 25, 1906. At all times the surgeon expressed the confident opinion that the man was not seriously or permanently injured, but would soon be able to return to his work. On July 25, 1906, six weeks after the accident, the company's claim agent, Mr Palmer, called upon him with reference to a settlement. Up to this time appellee had made no claim against the company for damages. He was sitting at the table when the agent arrived, but with the assistance of his wife went into another room where the interview took place. The agent said he had lately interviewed the surgeon, who informed him appellee would be able to return to his work in two months, and proposed to settle by paying to appellee an amount equal to two months' salary which he had been earning prior to his injury, being an aggregate sum of $ 234. Appellee's wife objected to the settlement offered, but he agreed to it, received a check for the money, and signed the release, which in express terms covers and includes all his claims and rights of action against the appellant on account of his said injuries. He does not claim to have been misled or deceived by the surgeon or claim agent in any way except by their assurances as to the nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial