Schwieger v. Harry W. Robbins & Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 33223,33223
• Citation: 290 P.2d 984,48 Wn.2d 22
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Everett G. SCHWIEGER, Appellant, v. HARRY W. ROBBINS & CO., Respondent.

Page 22

48 Wn.2d 22

290 P.2d 984

Everett G. SCHWIEGER, Appellant, v. HARRY W. ROBBINS & CO., Respondent.

No. 33223.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

Dec. 1, 1955.

Bryce Little, Wayne R. Parker, Myron L. Borawich, Seattle, for appellant.

N. A. Pearson, Seattle, for respondent.

OTT, Justice.

On April 5, 1951, Everett G. Schwieger was driving his truck on a public highway in King county. An employee of Harry W. Robbins & Co. was driving a company truck, loaded with baled hay, and approaching from the opposite direction. As the two trucks passed, several bales of hay fell from the company's truck onto Schwieger's truck, causing personal injuries to him and property damage.

Schwieger commenced an action in the superior court to recover from Harry W. Robbins & Co. for his personal injuries and for property damage. An amended complaint was filed which eliminated the claim of damages for personal injuries. The record discloses that, by stipulation, 'all matters between the plaintiff and defendant have been fully compromised and settled,' and that the cause was dismissed February 17, 1953, with prejudice and without costs.

December 11, 1953, Schwieger commenced the present action, upon which this appeal is predicated, claiming damages for the personal injuries suffered as a result of the same accident described in the first action.

Defendant's answer denied liability. An affirmative defense was pleaded, which alleged that for and in consideration of the payment of $972 the plaintiff had released by defendant from liability in any way arising from any known or unknown personal injuries and property damage resulting from the accident. A copy of the signed release was attached to the answer and affirmative defense.

The reply admitted the execution of the release and the receipt of the consideration paid therefor, but alleged that the release was given to settle the property damage claim, which was the only remaining issue in the first action, and that it was not intended to discharge plaintiff's claim for personal injuries.

Upon the issues thus joined, the cause proceeded to trial upon its merits. A jury was impanelled, and, after the first witness was sworn, defendant moved for dismissal of the cause, based upon the pleadings and the opening statement of counsel for plaintiff. The court granted the motion. From the judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff has appealed.

The appellant's principal assignment of error is that the court erred in dismissing his cause of action.

The material portion of the written release is as follows:

'I * * * Everett Schwieger * * * do hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge the said Harry K. Robbins Company [sic] from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses, and compensation on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown personal injuries and property damage resulting or to result from accident that occurred on or about the 5th day of April, 1951, * * *'

The release is in plain and unambiguous language. We often have said that the courts will not interpret the meaning of unambiguous contracts. Silen v. Silen, 1954, 44 Wash.2d 884, 271 P.2d 674. Neither will the courts permit oral evidence to establish or create an ambiguity in a written contract. Washington Fish & Oyster Co. v. G. P. Halferty & Co., 1954, 44 Wash.2d 646, 658, 269 P.2d 806, and case cited.

The appellant admits signing the release. He contends that he signed it because he believed no claim for personal injuries then existed under the law. A mistake of law is an erroneous conclusion with respect to the legal effect of known facts. A mistake of law, in the absence of fraud or some like cause, is not a ground for avoidance of a contract.

In Stahl v. Schwartz, 1912, 67 Wash. 25, 33, 120 P. 856, 859, this court stated the rule in the following language:

'But it is said that equity will not relieve a party where a contract is entered into under a mistake of law. This may be granted, although there are some cases to the contrary. But this rule, when applied, is attended with certain restrictions and qualifications which are as well...