Seeley v. Citizens Traction Co.

Negligence — Release of damages. Whore a woman, for a valuable consideration, executes to a railroad company a release of damages for personal injuries, after discussing its terms, and after having had an opportunity to consult her friends, and without fraud upon the part of the company, and where it appears that she is a woman of intelligence and fair education, she will be concluded by it, although her injuries turn out to be of amore serious character than she supposed them to be at the time she signed the release.

Appeal, No. 61, Oct. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Allegheny Co., Feb. Term, 1895, No. 580, on verdict for defendant. Trespass for personal injuries. Before McClung, J. At the trial it appeared that on October 27, 1892, the plaintiff, a young unmarried woman, was injured while a passenger on board of one of defendant’s street cars. The defendant set ■ up as a defense a release executed by the plaintiff on November 2, 1892, the consideration named therein being $25.00. Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Defendant asked for binding instructions. The court charged as follows: [In this case I will affirm the point put to me by counsel for the defendant, and direct a verdict for the defendant. It is due to you, perhaps, as well as to myself, to make some explanation; however, it is not at all necessary because that concludes the case. It still leaves the case in such position that counsel for the plaintiff can, by motion for a new trial, or taking a writ of error to the Supreme Court, test the question as to whether the ruling is correct. The ruling is based upon this release. It is not denied that it was made. As I said, and as I remarked to counsel, it is a ruling which could not well be made by me if I were to yield to my own personal feelings in the matter. The case is certainly a very distressing one, and it is a case proper to go to the jury outside of this matter of release. But the release was obtained, and it would appear from anything that has been shown here that it was taken and received in good faith upon both sides. It would unsettle the law to an unlimited extent to permit papers of this sort to be set aside on such testimony as we have. As a matter of course, in cases of this sort, where you have a trained employee dealing with parties who are not trained, perhaps we would on slighter grounds than any other case, allow a jury to find against the binding force of the paper. Any evidence of trickery or fraud upon the part of the person representing the company would cause us probably, to allow the cause to go to the jury. But in this case it would appear as if both parties were under a misapprehension as to the nature of these injuries, and that this young lady signed this paper under the belief that it was a proper compromise, and that that belief was in the mind of the other party also. As I said before, it would not be allowable' to unsettle the law to such an extent as to permit a paper under these circumstances to be set aside. There is evidence to go to the jury that this injury turned out to be much more serious, one that appeals to the feelings and heart of every person that has a heart, and it is especially emphasized in this case by the fact that the young lady upon the stand evidently regards her veracity of more importance than any verdict. She does not twist the facts of this settlement for the purpose of trying to save her case. She is evidently telling the truth and deserves very great credit for it. On the other grounds, the negligence of the company, I would not be disposed to affirm this point. It seems to me it would be a matter to submit to the jury. It certainly cannot be that the lives and safety of the parties who ride in these cars depend on the question as to whether one of these heavy wagons which are passing over the street every day in the year, and every hour in the day, passed ahead of the car. That system is not certainly as dangerous as that defense would indicate; if so, it would appear that any one who took a seat in one of these cars took his life in his hands. If the simple passing of one of those heavy wagons, which we all know are passing on that street every day, is sufficient to account for the accident which would stop a car in that way, then we have a very dangerous system of transit there. If the weight of one of those wagons will crush one of those castings in that way, with the paving in proper shape, it is time the system was modified, whether accidents have been avoided heretofore or not. Certainly, if a weight will break one of those castings and tear the nut off that rod or break it, then there ought to be some method of support, by the stones of the pavement or otherwise, in order that that danger shown by this accident to be so frightful in its consequences if an accident does occur, might be modified or lessened. I have thought proper, although it was strictly unnecessary, to give to the jury these explanations in this particular case. If I can be convinced in any way that I am wrong in this ruling, I will be very glad to correct it. I have now, as I said before, to simply affirm the point put by the counsel for the defense, and direct a verdict to be rendered in favor of the defendant.] [1] Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned among others was charge of the court, quoting it.