Schiefelbein v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1909
• Citation: 139 Wis. 612,120 N.W. 398
• Parties: SCHIEFELBEIN v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

139 Wis. 612

120 N.W. 398

SCHIEFELBEIN

v.FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 30, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Action by Albert Schiefelbein against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover damages claimed to have been caused by deceit.

The claim of the plaintiff was this: On and for some time prior to January 18, 1905, plaintiff was an employé of the Nekoosa Paper Company as a laborer in its mill. On such day, while engaged in his employment loading logs on flat cars by means of a steam log carrier, a cable, which was a necessary part of the appliance, broke causing a derrick boom to drop upon his head severely injuring him to his great damage. The cable, to the knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of the company, was defective, unsafe, and dangerous at the time of the accident. By reason of the facts the company became liable to plaintiff to compensate him for his injuries. At such time the company held a policy of casualty insurance in the defendant company as to liability to its servants from injuries received in the course of their employment. After the injury defendant's agent, by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting to plaintiff, at a time when by reason of his infirmities he was unable to make investigation of the matters, the condition of the cable when it broke, and also falsely and fraudulently misrepresented to him the extent of his injuries and the consequences thereof, which he believed to be true, he thereby was induced, without negligence on his part, to accept the sum of $119, in full settlement for all claims for damages against his employer on account of his injuries and to execute a formal release accordingly. Such agent, at the time he so obtained such release, well knew plaintiff had a valid claim for damages to an amount many times the sum so accepted, and that such small sum was accepted in ignorance of the facts, which ignorance as indicated, without negligence on plaintiff's part, was produced by the said false and fraudulent representations. By reason of the facts plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of $20,000.

Defendant answered putting in issue all allegations of the complaint respecting the release having been obtained by fraud and alleging that it was signed and the settlement made by plaintiff, freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the facts.

At the close of the evidence, the court, on motion...