Russ v. Union Oil Co
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MONROE, J. |
| Citation | Russ v. Union Oil Co, 36 So. 937, 113 La. 196 (La. 1904) |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 15,194 |
| Parties | RUSS v. UNION OIL CO |
Rehearing denied June 30, 1904.
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Thomas Fletcher Bell, Judge.
Action by Napoleon Russ against the Union Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Sutherlin & Barret, for appellant.
Thigpen & Foster, Charles Latham Gaines, and Frank J. Looney, for appellee.
Statement.
Plaintiff demands $ 5,000 as damages for personal injuries, sustained as he alleges, by reason of defective apparatus used in the mill in which he was employed by defendant. Defendant, by way of exception, sets up a compromise, and, the exception having been overruled, answers that the plaintiff assumed the danger incident to his employment, and that he was guilty of contributory negligence. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $ 425, the defendant has appealed, and the plaintiff has answered the appeal praying for an increase in the amount of the award.
The facts necessary to be considered in determining the validity and effect of the compromise, as we find them from the testimony in the record, are as follows:
The plaintiff had his arm broken whilst working in defendant's mill between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning of Thursday, January 15, 1903, and was immediately sent to the Charity Hospital in Shreveport. He was there asked whether he desired to consult a lawyer, and, upon his answering in the affirmative, Mr. Foster, of the law firm of Thigpen & Foster, was summoned by telephone, called on him between 9 and 10 o'clock, and entered into a contract, which was thereafter to be reduced to writing, to bring suit against the defendant for damages. Between 10 and 12 o'clock on the same day, Mr. West, defendant's manager, had plaintiff removed to a private sanitarium, and gave instructions that no lawyers were to be permitted to see him. The next day Mr. Foster sent to the sanitarium, for plaintiff's signature, a written instrument embodying the verbal contract between him and plaintiff of the day before, but his messenger was at first refused admittance to plaintiff's room. After some telephoning, however, between Foster and the surgeon in charge of the sanitarium, and between the latter and West, the messenger was admitted, and the contract was signed, and a copy of it served on West.
On the Sunday following (January 18th), Calvin Bradford called upon plaintiff in a friendly way, and after a short visit, in which nothing was said about the latter's claim against the defendant for damages, was in the act of leaving, when plaintiff requested him to ask Mr. West to come and see him, Bradford says, "about having the case withdrawn"; and Dr. Schumpe surgeon in charge of the sanitarium, testifies that at a different time the plaintiff made a similar request of him. Bradford delivered the message the next morning (Monday, January 19th), and West, accompanied by Russell, one of defendant's employes, went at once to the sanitarium and effected the compromise here in question, which was reduced to writing and signed by plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses at a later hour on the same day; and plaintiff also signed a letter, which West had caused to be prepared, and which was duly delivered, informing plaintiff's attorneys of the compromise, and instructing them not to bring suit, as also a letter to defendant stating that he had no claim against it. West, testifying in regard to the matter, says that plaintiff "stated that he had done wrong in bringing the suit, and that he wanted to have it withdrawn; that he saw where he had made a mistake, and that if he [West] would take care of him and give him his place back he would like very much to have the thing compromised and settled"; and he further testifies that the instrument evidencing the compromise and the letters mentioned were fully explained to plaintiff, were delivered to and read by him, and were signed by him without hesitation, intimidation, misrepresentation, or inducement; and this testimony is corroborated in different terms and degrees by Russell, Schumpert, and Kingsmore. The instrument in question reads, in part, as follows:
"Know all men by these presents: That in consideration of the sum of $ 20 to me in hand paid by the Union Oil Co. of Shreveport, Louisiana, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the assumption of all medical and surgical bills at the Sanitarium, and the further agreement to pay me running time (meaning work days) for six weeks, with a view of effecting a settlement and compromise I have released, acquitted and discharged, and do, by these presents release, acquit and forever discharge the said Union Oil Co. * * * of, and from, any and all costs, charges, claims, or demands, of whatsoever name or nature in any manner arising, or to grow out of, the accident by which I had my right arm broken on Thursday, January 15, 1903, on the third floor of the said mill," etc.
The $ 20 referred to were paid upon the signing of the instrument, and the "running time" was paid, week by week, for three weeks thereafter, at the expiration of which period the plaintiff, through his counsel, repudiated the compromise, tendered back the money which had been received, and offered to pay his bill at the sanitarium, and the defendant tendered the balance of the running time called for by the compromise, and offered to give plaintiff light employment at its mill.
From the testimony of plaintiff we make the following excerpts: After stating that West and Murphy (the latter being another of defendant's employes) had called on him on the day after the accident, and before he had signed the contract with his attorneys, he proceeds:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Wise v. Prescott
...a voluntary compromise agreement, lawfully consummated, has the force of a definitive judgment in such transaction. In Russ v. Union Oil Co., 113 La. 196, 36 So. 937, the Supreme Court 'There is no rule of law, morals, or ethics which denies to the ordinary citizen the right to compromise, ......
-
Audubon Ins. Co. v. Farr
...art. 3077. 2 A compromise cannot be collaterally attacked. Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U.S. 605, 26 L.Ed. 1186 (1882); Russ v. Union Oil Co., 113 La. 196, 36 So. 937 (1904). The compromise between Allstate and Paul is not subject to collateral attack by Audubon Insurance The next question is th......
-
Benson v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of N. Y.
... ... But an error in calculation may always be corrected.' ... The jurisprudence is to the same effect. In quoting from Russ v. Union Oil Co., 113 La. 196, 205, 36 So. 937, it was stated in Stoufflet v. Duplantis, 208 La. 186, 23 So.2d 41, 44: ... 'There is no rule of ... ...
-
Stoufflet v. Duplantis
... ... v. Prudhomme, 16 La.Ann ... 343; Ackerman v. McShane, 43 La.Ann. 507, 9 So. 483; Oglesby ... v. Attrill, 105 U.S. 605, 26 L.Ed. 1186.' Russ v. Union ... Oil Co., 113 La. 196, 36 So. 937, 940. Also see: John H ... Cassidy v. D. Rex Joseph, 204 La. 664, 16 So.2d 225; Misuraca ... v ... ...