Staehlin v. Hochdoerfer

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Ragland
• Citation: Staehlin v. Hochdoerfer, 235 S.W. 1060 (Mo. 1921)
• Decision Date: 11 July 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22070.,22070.
• Parties: STAEHLIN v. HOCHDOERFER.

235 S.W. 1060

STAEHLIN v. HOCHDOERFER.

No. 22070.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

July 11, 1921.

Rehearing Denied December 19, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferriss, Judge.

Action by Henry Staehlin against D. F. Hochdoerfer. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John Cashman, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Edward W. Foristel, of St. Louis (James T. Roberts, of St. Louis, of counsel), for respondent.

RAGLAND, C.

Defendant is a physician and surgeon, and this action was commenced against him in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis September 19, 1912, to recover damages for alleged malpractice in treating a broken leg. On the same day that it was instituted a suit was also filed by plaintiff against Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company for personal injuries claimed to have been negligently inflicted by it on plaintiff while in its employ on February 10, 1912. The petition in the latter case alleged that by reason of certain negligent acts therein set forth plaintiff's right leg was broken near the ankle, and the flesh was mangled and crushed; that while said injuries were being treated blood poison set in; that in order to save plaintiff's life it became necessary to amputate the leg; and that it was amputated at the upper part of the thigh. A recovery was sought for the injuries received including the loss of the limb. The damages were laid at $30,000, and as an element thereof it was alleged that plaintiff would be required to expend $800 for an artificial leg, with additional sums from time to time for repair and renewals.

On January 16, 1913, plaintiff instituted a second suit against Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company. The petition in this case, after setting out preliminarily the original in jury to plaintiff's right leg while plaintiff was in defendant's employ, on February 10, 1912, alleged in substance that defendant took charge and control of plaintiff and of the care and treatment of his injuries. It then proceeded:

"That because and on account of the unskillful and careless acts and omissions of defendant and the surgeons selected by defendant in and about the care and treatment of his said injured leg, and because of the blood poison and infection that were brought about by said negligent acts and omissions, the said leg became inflamed and decomposed, because of all of which, and the amputation of said leg, the suffering from the original injury was greatly intensified, augmented, and prolonged, and plaintiff was thereby caused to suffer and endure, and did suffer and endure, and will while he lives continue to suffer and endure, great physical pain and mental anguish, and has been compelled to pay out and become liable for large sums of money, to wit, $1,000, in the care and treatment of his said leg, and will hereafter be compelled to pay out and become liable for additional large sums of money in the care and treatment of his said leg, and in the purchase and repair of an artificial leg to take the place of the leg which he lost through defendant's said negligence."

A judgment for $25,000 was asked.

On February 20, 1914, plaintiff's first suit against Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company was disposed of upon the execution by him of a paper which recited that, in consideration of $1,300, he thereby released and discharged the company of and from all claims of whatsoever kind and nature, growing out of or in any wise connected with an injury sustained by him while in its employ, more fully described in the petition filed in the cause. The suit was thereupon dismissed upon a stipulation which recited that the cause had been fully settled. On the same day and evidently as a part of the same transaction, plaintiff's second suit against Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company was dismissed upon the execution by him of a paper of which the following is a copy:

"Whereas, the undersigned, Henry Staehlin, did heretofore, to wit, on the 10th day of February, 1912, sustain certain personal injuries while in the employ of Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company as the result of a fall from a wagon on the premises of said company:

"Now, therefore, I, the undersigned, for the sole consideration of $50 to me in hand paid by Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby release and discharge said company of and from any and all claims of whatever kind or nature growing out of or in any wise connected with any act which the said company did to me or caused to be done to me after the occurrence of said injuries, or out of any treatment, if any, which the said company caused to be rendered me, or failed to cause to be rendered me, it being the intention of the undersigned to fully release said company from any and all claims set out in the petition filed by the undersigned in the suit of Henry Staehlin against Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo., being No. 82984, division No. 7.

"It is expressly understood and agreed, however, that said Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company is not legally liable or responsible for any negligent or careless treatment or lack of treatment to the injuries of the undersigned referred to in the above-mentioned suit by the doctors who attended the undersigned after he was hurt, and the undersigned hereby disclaims any right of recovery of or from said Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company because of any lack of attention or carelessness or negligence in the treatment of the injuries sustained by the undersigned as aforesaid, but that the undersigned alone looks to and shall make claim of Dr. D. F. Hochdoerfer and Dr. W. A. H. Steinman, or such other doctors as attended the undersigned after he was hurt, and this release of said Fox Bros. Manufacturing Company shall not be taken to be a release of said doctors, or any doctors or persons who may be shown to have been negligent or careless in treating said injuries, and the undersigned, Henry Staehlin, hereby expressly reserves the right to proceed against said doctors, or any other doctors, in his suit now pending against said doctors, or in any other way which shall be deemed lawful to...