Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co.

Decision Date05 September 1952
Citation8 Terry 343,91 A.2d 245,47 Del. 343
Parties, 47 Del. 343 RAUGHLEY v. DELAWARE COACH CO. et al.
CourtDelaware Superior Court

Suit for personal injuries resulting from alleged negligence. The matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to strike certain defenses or, in the alternative, for summary judgment as to the issues raised by those defenses. The named defendant has also moved for summary judgment.

The complaint charges that the plaintiff was a passenger on a bus of Delaware Coach Company (called Delaware Coach) driven by Frederick Moore at a time when it collided with a train of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (called B. & O.), and that he was injured through the negligence of all three defendants. The original answer of B. & O. denied negligence on its part. It later filed a supplemental answer setting forth two additional defenses based upon a release executed by the plaintiff. One defense is that this paper releases B. & O. as well as the other two defendants. The other defense avers payment by Delaware Coach and Moore to the plaintiff of the sum of $20,000, the consideration recited in the release. Attached to the supplemental answer is a copy of the release, which is as follows:

'Whereas, on or about the Twenty-third day of June, 1950, Thomas L. Raughley was a passenger in a gasoline bus owned by Delaware Coach Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, and operated by its employee, Frederick Moore, on a regularly scheduled run on the Newport-Gap Turnpike near the community known as Belvidere in Christiana Hundred, New Castle County, and State of Delaware, at a time when said gasoline bus had an accident with and collided with the locomotive of freight train No 4482 owned by The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Maryland, and operated by its employee, William B. Willard, whereby the said Thomas L. Raughley suffered various temporary and permanent bodily injuries as well as damages to his personal property and was compelled to expend large sums of money for his medical care; and

'Whereas, the said Thomas L. Raughley brought suit in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County against Delaware Coach Company, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and Frederick Moore, which suit is No. 319 Civil Action 1951; and

'Whereas, the said Thomas L. Raughley and the Said Delaware Coach Company and Frederick Moore have reached a settlement of all claims and demands which the said Thomas L. Raughley has by reason of said accident against the Delaware Coach Company and/or Frederick Moore, including all claims and demands which have been or might have been asserted in said action, being No. 319 Civil Action 1951, as a term of which settlement the said Thomas L. Raughley has agreed to dismiss with prejudice said action in so far as it applies to Delaware Coach Company and/or Frederick Moore;

'Now therefore, know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas L. Raughley, in consideration of the payment to me of the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), lawful money of the United States of America, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have remised, released and forever quitclaimed and discharged the said Delaware Coach Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, and the said Frederick Moore, and each of them, their and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, of and from all actions, causes of action, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any loss, damage, injury or expense which heretofore has been or hereafter may be sustained by me or by my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, for or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the date of these presents and particularly of and from all claims and demands arising out of or in any way connected with the loss, injuries and damages sustained by me in said accident on the Twenty-third day of June, 1950.

'It is understood and agreed that this Release shall reduce, to the extent of the pro rata share or Delaware Coach Company and Frederick Moore, any damages recoverable by me against The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company or against any other person, firm or corporation by reason of said accident on June 23, 1950; and to this end, in further consideration of the aforesaid payment to me I do hereby release and forever quitclaim and discharge the said The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and all other persons, firms and corporations whatsoever and each of them, their and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, of and from all actions, causes of action, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of the pro rata share caused by or attributable to the said Delaware Coach Company and/or Frederick Moore of any loss, damage, injury or expense suffered by me in connection with said accident on June 23, 1950.

'It is understood and agreed that the said payment is made in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims arising from the injuries and damages sustained by me as hereinabove set forth and shall not be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the said Delaware Coach Company or on the part of the said Frederick Moore.

'In witness whereof, I, the said Thomas L. Raughley, have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18th day of December, 1951.

'Sealed and delivered in the presence of John M. Bader

Thomas L. Raughley (Seal)' John M. Bader, of Wilmington, for plaintiff.

William Pickett, of Wilmington, for defendant, the Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.

CAREY, Judge.

The present dispute involves the Uniform Contribution among Tortfeasors Act, adopted in Delaware in 1949 as Chapter 151 Volume 47, Laws of Delaware 259. This act changed the common law by creating a right of contribution among joint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Chrysler Corp. v. Todorovich, 4602
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 1978
    ...Chrysler would have to be reduced by that amount. Harding v. Evans, 207 F.Supp. 852 (M.D.Pa.1962); Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co., 8 Terry 343, 47 Del. 343, 91 A.2d 245 (Superior Ct. 1952); Garrison v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 74 N.M. 238, 392 P.2d 580 (1964); Smith v. Fenner, 399 Pa. 63......
  • Adams v. Jankouskas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 15 Septiembre 1982
    ...and the court will attempt to ascertain their intent from the overall language of the document. Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co., Del.Supr., 8 Terry 343, 91 A.2d 245 (1952). See also Chakov v. Outboard Marine Corp., supra. And where the language of the release is clear and unambiguous, it wil......
  • Whitt v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1975
    ...specifically named in order to be discharged by a release. Contra, Young v. State (Alaska 1969), 455 P.2d 889; Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co. (1952), 47 Del. 343, 91 A.2d 245. Four states have other statutes which are similar in effect to the Uniform Five states, including Ohio, presume tha......
  • Sellon v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 9 Septiembre 1981
    ...addressed. No single phrase, in isolation, controls the agreement. See Clark v. Brooks, supra, 377 A.2d at 373; Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co., 91 A.2d 245, 248 (Del.Super.1952). In the release before this Court, there appears to be substance to the Delaware Supreme Court's fear of RELEASE ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT