Nelson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company
| Decision Date | 24 May 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9160--(9) |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 486,61 Minn. 167 |
| Parties | ELIDA E. NELSON v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Canty, J., denying a motion to set aside an order dismissing the action and for a new trial. Affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Penny Welch & Hayne and A. N. Merrick, for appellant.
Koon Whelan & Bennett, for respondent.
Action for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. One of the defenses interposed was that the plaintiff had, for a valuable consideration settled the claim sued on, and executed to defendant a full release and discharge therefrom. To this the plaintiff replied that the settlement had been induced by the false and fraudulent representations of defendant's agents as to the extent of her injuries, upon which she relied in executing the release.
The evidence disclosed the following facts: Plaintiff had made a claim against the defendant for damages. Negotiations looking to a settlement of the claim were pending for several months. On two different occasions during these negotiations, the defendant employed a physician to go and examine the plaintiff, and report to its claim agent the extent of her injuries. These physicians had no other duty to perform, and this was the extent of their authority. On each of these occasions, at the close of the examination, the physicians in answer to inquiries by plaintiff, or by her husband in her presence, as to whether they thought she was seriously injured, or whether her injuries were dangerous, replied in the negative, saying that she would soon be all right again; that all she needed was some tonic; that all that ailed her was that she had not blood enough in her system. About three weeks after the last of these examinations, plaintiff, with her husband, went to the office of defendant's claim agent, and settled for $ 250, and executed the release referred to; relying, as she testifies, upon the statements of these physicians as to the extent of her injuries. It has subsequently developed, as the evidence tended to show, that plaintiff was much more seriously injured than the physicians stated in their opinions expressed to her and her husband. But there is not a particle of evidence tending to show that either of the physicians intentionally misrepresented the extent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Harris
...insofar as they are affected by a release. Kate L. Wood, Admns. v. Mass. Mutual Accident Insurance Co., 174 Mass. 217. In Nelson v. Minn. Street Railway, 61 Minn. 167, where release of a claim for damages was signed by the plaintiff on the assurance of the defendant's physician that the inj......