Southern Ry. Co. v. Hogue

• Decision Date: 28 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 42869,No. 1,42869,1
• Citation: 156 S.E.2d 412,116 Ga.App. 194
• Parties: SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. H. H. HOGUE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 412

156 S.E.2d 412

116 Ga.App. 194

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. H. H. HOGUE.

No. 42869.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 28, 1967.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1967.

Certiorari Denied Sept. 7, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

In an employee's action for injuries under the Federal Employeers' Liability Act, a release entered into between the employer and employee in compromise and settlement of the claim cannot be attacked for mutual mistake unless the employee tenders the return of the consideration he received for the release.

This petition contains in effect the following allegations: The plaintiff was employed as a machinist for the defendant railroad, and while so employed was injured and totally disabled to continue that employment, and he brought this action under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 66 (1908) 45 U.S.C.A. (1952). The petition alleged that shortly after this injury the plaintiff signed a release to the defendant based upon representations by the defendant's doctor, who was treating the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had only a bruised knee and representations of the defendant's claims agent who negotiated the release with the plaintiff that the plaintiff's injuries would not be permanent and that he had been so advised by the doctor. Relying upon and following the advice of the defendant's doctor that the injuries were not serious, both parties made a mistake of fact as to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff would completely recover therefrom. Thereafter complications from the injuries developed requiring surgical removal of the plaintiff's kneecap and cartilage from the knee and resulting in the plaintiff's disability. The consideration paid by the defendant for the release was grossly inadequate in view of the extent of the injuries.

On this appeal the defendant enumerates as error the judgment of the trial court overruling its general demurrer on the grounds that the petition set forth no cause of action and affirmatively showed that the plaintiff was barred from recovery.

Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore & Jones, John D. Jones, C. Richard McQueen, Atlanta, for appellant.

Sam D. Hewlett, Jr., Florence Hewlett Dendy, Atlanta, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

Under our federal system, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a federal court is 'in effect, only another court of the State * * *' and 'the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court.' Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 108, 109, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079, 160 A.L.R. 1231; Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487. The corollary of this principle is the uniformity of federally created rights that seek enforcement in a State court; therefore, 'local rules of pleading cannot be used to impose unnecessary burdens upon rights of recovery authorized by federal laws,' e.g., the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Brown v. Western Railway of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294, 298, 70 S.Ct. 105, 94 L.Ed. 100. The question posed in the present case is controlled by federal law. Dice v. Akron, C. & Y.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359, 72 S.Ct. 312, 96 L.Ed. 398.

Section 5 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 55), providing that any contract to enable any common carrier to 'exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void,' does not prevent a railroad from compromising or settling claims and obtaining releases based upon such settlements. Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 332 U.S. 625, 68 S.Ct. 296, 92 L.Ed. 242. 'Untainted by fraud or overreaching, full and fair compromises of FELA claims do not clash with the policy of the Act.' South Buffalo R. Co. v. Ahern, 344 U.S. 367, 372, 73 S.Ct. 340, 97 L.Ed. 395. However, a release induced by fraud or by mutual mistake as to the nature or extent of the releasor's injuries does not bar an action to recover for the injuries. Dice v Akron, C. & Y.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359, 362, 72 S.Ct. 312, 96 L.Ed. 398; Steele v. Erie R. Co., 54 F.2d 688, 690 (W.D.N.Y. 1930); Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Curl, 178 F.2d 497 (8th...