Petterson v. Butler Brothers
| Decision Date | 12 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,233 - (103) |
| Parties | NILS J. PETTERSON v. BUTLER BROTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $15,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant. The answer, among other matters, alleged that plaintiff and defendant by mutual agreement adjusted and settled the claim against defendant, and pursuant to such adjustment defendant paid to plaintiff in money the amount demanded by him, and he received and accepted the same in full payment of his cause of action, and then executed and delivered to defendant a paper writing acknowledging payment of such sum in full settlement. The reply set up the statements and representations made to plaintiff by defendant's agent for the purpose of procuring a settlement, and alleged that the statements and representations made by defendant were false and untrue and defendant well knew that each of them was false and untrue. The case was tried before Dibell, J., who denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict of $3,211.71 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Release of claim -- fraud.
1. Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, had his foot crushed by a dump-car used by defendant in its work of "stripping" a mine. He made a settlement for the injury and executed a full release to defendants. Subsequently he brought this action and recovered a verdict. Evidence examined and held sufficient to sustain the findings of the jury that defendants were negligent and that the release was vitiated by fraud.
Request to charge.
2. Where the court fairly informs the jury as to the weight of evidence necessary to impeach such release, the refusal to state the rule in the language of a proffered request is not error.
P.J McLaughlin and Alexander Marshall, for appellant.
Andrew Nelson and George B. Sjoselius, for respondent.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict for personal injuries. An alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was made and denied, and defendants appealed.
Defendants were engaged in stripping the overlying earth and rock from the ore deposits in the Grant iron mine near Buhl, and plaintiff, a young man 27 years of age, was employed by them in this work. The material removed was loaded upon trains of dumpcars by a steam shovel and then hauled away by a locomotive. The boulders too large to be loaded by the steam shovel were broken up with charges of dynamite. These charges were usually exploded during the noon hour, and employees who brought lunches and remained in the pit while eating them sought places where they would be protected from the rock and other debris thrown by the blasts. On the day of the accident, a train of dump-cars, with the engine attached, was standing near the steam shovel when the crew quit work at noon. Warning had been given that blasts were about to be fired; and several employees including plaintiff went to the opposite side of the train from the blasts, seated themselves under the edge of the cars upon a bank of earth sloping toward the railway track, and began eating their lunches. At this time the engineer, deeming his engine too near the blasts for safety, started the train. Plaintiff, in attempting to get up the sloping bank from under the edge of the car, had his foot caught and crushed by the wheels. He was removed to a hospital and his foot amputated near the instep. Nearly a year later it was necessary to make a further amputation near the heel.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for the injuries sustained. Defendants were insured against liability for such injuries and the defense of the action was assumed by the insurance company. The office of the insurance company was in the city of Virginia. The trial was set for November 15, 1911, at Hibbing. On the day before the date set for the trial, plaintiff accompanied one Karlson, an emissary of the insurance company, to Virginia with a view of making a settlement. They found the office of the insurance company closed and all the officials absent. At Karlson's invitation plaintiff went to Karlson's home in Virginia and remained there for several days. On November 16, 1911, the insurance officials, who had been at Hibbing attending court and had caused plaintiff's action to be dismissed for want of prosecution, returned to Virginia; and a settlement was effected on that date, by which plaintiff received $735 and executed a full release of all claims against defendants. A year later he began the present action. Defendants contend:
(1) That the finding that they were negligent is not sustained by the evidence.
(2) That plaintiff is barred from recovering by the release executed November 16, 1911.
(3) That the court erred in the instructions given to the jury.
1. Whether defendants were negligent depends upon whether they gave the customary warnings before starting the train. There is the usual conflict in the evidence. Defendant's witnesses testify that the warnings were given; plaintiff and his witnesses that no warnings were heard. The question was fairly submitted to the jury and the evidence is sufficient to sustain their conclusion. Defendants do not seriously contend to the contrary.
2. The doubtful question in the case is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the jury that the release was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations. At the time of executing the release, plaintiff knew and fully understood that he was relinquishing and satisfying all claims for damages on account of his injury, in consideration of the amount then paid him. A somewhat fuller statement of the circumstances is perhaps necessary for a proper understanding of the situation.
Plaintiff and defendant's foreman, Charley Johnson, were both natives of Sweden and had...
To continue reading
Request your trial