Bjorklund v. Seattle Electric Co.
Citations
- 35 Wash. 439
- 77 P. 727
- 1904 Wash. LEXIS 468
Syllabus
<p>Compromise — Release oe Damages Secured by Fraud — Parties not on Equal Footing — Question eor Jury. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by an employe, whether the plaintiff was fraudulently misled and induced to sign a release of his damages is a question for the jury, where it appears that the company’s physician told the plaintiff that his injury was slight and he would he well in a short time, hut wrote a letter showing a serious injury, and when it appears that the plaintiff understood English imperfectly, and supposed he was signing a receipt for wages for the time he had lost, then paid to him, under a promise for future employment, and under the representations of the company’s claim agent that it was such receipt, and that from long service he placed reliance in the defendant’s agents and physician; since the jury could reasonably find that the parties did not stand upon an equal footing, and that the plaintiff was justified in placing confidence in the representations because of his long established relations with the company.</p> <p>Same — Expressions oe Opinion. In such a case it is for the jury to say whether the physician’s statements concerning the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries were mere expressions of opinion or statements of fact upon which the plaintiff had a right co rely.</p> <p>Same — Surrender oe Amount Paid on Settlement. It is not necessary to return a sum received in a settlement induced by fraud, before bringing action ón tbe demand, but the same maybe credited thereon.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Release Secured by Fraud — Servant’s Continuance oe Employment — Estoppel. Where a servant was induced, by an agreement for future employment and false representations respecting the extent of his injuries, to sign a release for personal injuries sustained through the negligence of the master, the fact that he shortly afterwards went back to work under representations of the master’s claim agent and physician that his i
Judges: Hadley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Mattson v. Eureka Cedar Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1914-04-27· cited 27×
- American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Bremerton Gas Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1917-11-13· cited 16×
- Coke v. TimbyUtah Supreme Court· 1920-09-25· cited 14×
- Malkmus v. St. Louis Portland Cement Co.Missouri Court of Appeals· 1910-10-01· cited 12×
- Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.W.D. Washington· 1915-05-15· cited 8×
- Del Rosario v. Del RosarioCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-05-19· cited 4×
- Beagle v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.W.D. Washington· 1940-02-16· cited 3×
- Peterson v. A. Guthrie & Co.W.D. Washington· 1933-04-14· cited 3×
- Thornton v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.W.D. Washington· 1930-10-17· cited 3×
- Ted Price Construction Company v. Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, a Washington Corporation Fish Service Corporation, a CorporationNinth Circuit· 1962-09-11· cited 2×
- Peacock Mill Co. v. HoneycuttWashington Supreme Court· 1909-09-25
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. BelliwithEighth Circuit· 1897-11-15· cited 69×
- Spitze v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1892-01-14· cited 56×
- Hawkins v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1875-07-01· cited 55×
- Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1902-02-21· cited 32×
- Whitney & Starrette Co. v. O'RourkeIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-04-21· cited 28×
- Fuller v. Madison Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court· 1875-01-15· cited 25×
- Pederson v. Seattle Consolidated Street Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1893-04-14· cited 18×
- Indiana, Decatur & Western Railway Co. v. FowlerIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-02-18· cited 16×
- Burik v. Dundee Woolen Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1901-06-10· cited 12×
- St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. PhillipsEighth Circuit· 1895-01-02· cited 11×
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. KasischkeEighth Circuit· 1900-10-08· cited 6×
- Pioneer Cooperage Co. v. RomanowiczIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-06-21· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.