Quebe v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1904
• Citation: 81 S.W. 20
• Parties: QUEBE v. GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

81 S.W. 20

QUEBE v. GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 26, 1904.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by W. S. Quebe against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (77 S. W. 442), and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

S. C. Padelford, for plaintiff in error. Ramsey & Odell and J. W. Ferry, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

A judgment of the district court in favor of the defendant in error in an action brought against it by plaintiff in error for damages for personal injuries was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and the case is before us on writ of error from the judgment of affirmance.

Quebe, while in the employment of the railroad company, and attempting to stop with a heavy piece of timber an engine tank moving along an inclined track, stumbled over an iron peg driven into a pathway along which he was running, and was struck upon the breast and throat by the end of the timber and fell, his head striking the ground with force. He stopped work for a few days, but, believing that he had received no injuries except those to his throat and breast, and that they were trifling, and being so told by the surgeon of the company, he reported for re-employment. The company had a rule forbidding the re-employment of any servant who had an unsettled claim for damages against it, and its agents informed Quebe that he could not be employed unless he executed a release. Thereupon the following instrument was executed:

"Contract of Settlement.

"Know all men by these presents: That whereas, on the 3rd day of May, 1901, I, the undersigned, was in the employ of the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, as carpenter, on * * * and while so employed received injuries as follows: Throat and breast injured by falling on a peg. And whereas, said company will not employ or retain in its employment any one who has an unadjusted claim for damages against it, and will not promise employment to or consider any one as an applicant for employment who has an unadjusted claim against it:

"Now, therefore, for the purpose of fully ending and determining any claim for damages that I may have against said company, and for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid by the said company, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, it being agreed that the execution hereof will be conclusive evidence of the receipt of the same by me, and that I will never claim that the same was not paid to me by said company, and in consideration of the promise of said company to employ me for one day as carpenter at the usual rate of pay, the execution hereof being conclusive evidence that said company has made me such promise, and for such further time and in such capacity as may be satisfactory to the said company, and not longer or otherwise, I do hereby remise, release and forever discharge said company of and from any and all manner of actions, suits, debts, and sums of money, dues, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or equity, which I have ever had or now have against said company by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatever, whether the same arose upon contract or upon tort. It being expressly agreed and understood that said company is not bound or obligated by these presents or otherwise (except as to said one day) to retain me in any particular kind of employment nor for any definite time.

"In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of May, 1901.

                                          "W. S. Quebe."
                

Quebe resumed work on the same day, and remained in the service for about four months, when he became blind and quit. The consideration of $1 was also paid to him by the company. In his action he asserts no claim for the injury to his throat and breast, but claims that his loss of sight was caused by the blow received upon the head in falling. As to this, his contentions are (1) that the release does not cover that injury; but, if it does, (2) that it was executed without consideration; (3) that it was executed under a mistake of fact; and (4) that it was procured by fraud. Besides the questions arising on this release, there were the usual issues as to negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and proximate cause. Another prominent question was whether or not plaintiff's loss of sight was caused by his fall, and upon this the evidence was conflicting and uncertain. The judge who tried the case submitted all of these issues, and, with reference to the release, instructed the jury that it precluded the plaintiff from recovering any damages for the injury to his throat and breast, and further as follows: "The question as to whether the plaintiff and the defendant company intended by the execution of said release to include therein injury to plaintiff's eyes is a question of fact for your determination under the terms and language of said release, construed in the light of all the evidence and circumstances in the case. If you believe that by the terms of said instrument, construed in the light of all the evidence in this case, it was contemplated or intended by the plaintiff and the defendant company, at the time of the execution of said release, to release the defendant company from all injuries and damages that might result to plaintiff from said accident and injury, including injuries to his eyesight,...