 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nevue v. Close2/17/1994
Plaintiff was a passenger in a car rearended by defendant's truck. Defendant was insured by Safeco Insurance Company whose adjuster obtained, a few weeks later, a general release from plaintiff for payment of $150, plus medicals.
The validity of the release is at issue. The trial court, relying on the release, granted summary judgment to defendant, Adolph Close. The Court of Appeals reversed holding there was a material question of fact whether the release was "'fairly and knowingly made.'" Nevue v. Close, 67 Wash. App. 635, 638, 838 P.2d 132 (1992) (quoting Finch v. Carlton, 84 Wash. 2d 140, 146, 524 P.2d 898 (1974)). We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.
At the time of the collision, plaintiff, Sharon Nevue, was 4 months' pregnant. She was lying down in the back seat; the impact threw her against the back of the front seat.
Plaintiff was examined at a hospital emergency room. Her main expressed concern was her pregnancy, but also complained of neck and abdominal pain. After x-rays, the diagnosis was neck strain with directions to take Tylenol for any neck pain. The neck discomfort abated within 24 hours. At some later stage, plaintiff experienced neck and low back pains, but attributed these to her pregnancy.
The time of onset of these later developed pains and their medical nature are not disclosed by the record. There is no medical evidence beyond limited evidence from the emergency room treatment.
The form release in question provided:
It is understood and agreed that this is a FULL AND FINAL RELEASE in full compromise settlement of all claims of every nature and kind whatsoever, and releases all claims whether known or unknown; suspected or unsuspected.
Our holdings in two cases provide the background for a decision in this case. In Finch v. Carlton, 84 Wash. 2d 140, 144, 524 P.2d 898 (1974), the court adopted the majority rule concerning releases involving personal injuries. The court stated the majority rule as follows:
The better reasoned rule adopted by an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions permits the avoidance of a release in circumstances where later-discovered injuries were clearly not contemplated by the parties at the time of release.
Finch, at 144. The court went on to hold:
In our opinion, the majority rule is the more equitable and reasoned doctrine. The rationale employed by a majority of jurisdictions does not permit the avoidance of a release merely because of the discovery of a previously unknown injury, but instead allows an inquiry into whether the release was fairly and knowingly made.
Finch, at 145-46.
The Finch holding continues to be the majority rule.
It has been widely held that the express language of a release is not conclusive, but rather that the courts will look to what was actually within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the release in determining whether there was such a mistake as to justify avoidance . . . .
(Italics ours.) Annot., Modern Status of Rules as to Avoidance of Release of Personal Injury Claim on Ground of Mistake as to Nature and Extent of Injuries, 13 A.L.R.4th 686, 692 (1982).
Finch v. Carlton, supra, involved injuries which were completely unknown at the time of the release; thus, it is distinguishable from the facts in this case, as shown hereafter.
In the second case, Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc., 108 Wash. 2d 386,
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|