Richardson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 23,544.,23,544. |
| Citation | 157 Minn. 474 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | ADA T. RICHARDSON v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
recover $25,000 for the death of her intestate. The case was tried before Waite, J., who when plainttiff rested granted her motion to amend the complaint and at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $5,500. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant appealed. Reversed.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb and A. C. Erdall, for appellant.
George C. Stiles and F. M. Miner, for respondent.
John E. Richardson was a locomotive engineer in the employ of the defendant. On June 16, 1920, his right arm was broken and his right side bruised and contused in an accident caused by the breaking of a defective axle on the locomotive which he was operating. On January 15, 1921, at his own instance and after mature deliberation, he made a settlement with defendant for the injuries sustained whereby, in consideration of the sum of $1,400 paid to him by defendant, he released and discharged defendant from all claims whatsoever which he then had or might thereafter have on account of such injuries. He died February 11, 1922. Thereafter plaintiff, his widow, as administratrix of his estate, brought this action, claiming that his death resulted from the injuries received in the accident, and that she is entitled to recover the damages which he had sustained in his lifetime and also the damages which she has sustained by reason of his death. The release executed by him seven months after the injury and a year before his death, was interposed as a bar to the action. The sole ground on which plaintiff seeks to avoid the release is that it was executed under a mutual mistake concerning the nature and extent of the injuries which Mr. Richardson had sustained. No fraud or misrepresentation of any sort is claimed. The court directed the jury to determine whether the release was executed under a mutual mistake in respect to the injuries sustained by Mr. Richardson and actually existing at the time it was executed. They found this issue for plaintiff, and the question presented is whether this finding is warranted by the evidence.
Where the consideration received for a release is intended as compensation for the injuries sustained, and it subsequently develops that a substantial injury existed which was not known to the parties when the settlement was made and consequently was not taken into account in making it, the release may be avoided on the ground of mutual mistake. But this rule only goes to the extent of permitting a release to be set aside where it clearly appears that at the time the settlement was made the releasor was in fact suffering from injuries actually sustained in the accident which were not taken into consideration in making the settlement because not then known.
To justify rescinding a contract or release on the ground of mutual mistake, the mistake must be as to a "past or present fact material to the contract." That the injuries for which settlement was made resulted in disabilities and ailments which were not anticipated at the time it was made is not such a mistake. The consequences which will follow in the future from known injuries depend upon so many unknown conditions and contingencies and will vary to such an extent in different individuals that they cannot be known with any degree of certainty. Mistakes in forecasting such consequences are mistakes of opinion, not of fact, and furnish no sufficient ground for annulling the release.
Where, as they did here, the parties make a settlement by which, in consideration of the payment of a specified sum, all claims for damages, then existing or thereafter arising on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, are satisfied and discharged, the settlement is binding and conclusive, although subsequent events disclose that the injuries produced effects which were neither known nor anticipated when the settlement was made. The parties are presumed to have had in mind the uncertainty as to the after-effects of the injuries, and to have elected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial