Spritzer v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 226 Pa. 166
• 75 A. 256
• 1910 Pa. LEXIS 732

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Personal injuries — Release—Evidence—Parol evidence to contradict writing — Province of court and jury.</p> <p>1. When in a common-law action the attempt is not to alter or contradict some of the terms of a written instrument, but to overcome it wholly and set it aside, the testimony of a single witness covering the point in controversy, no matter that it be contradicted by many opposing witnesses, requires a submission of the question of fact so raised to the jury.</p> <p>2. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries where the defendant sets up a written release signed by the plaintiff shortly after the accident, the burden is on the plaintiff to show conditions which would avoid the release in law, and his testimony alone, although contradicted, requires a submission of the question of fact so raised to the jury.; but where his own testimony shows that he executed the release without any fraud or misrepresentations on the part of the defendant's agents, and that his mental condition at the time was such that he was capable of comprehending and understanding his act and its nature with probable consequences, and there is no other evidence to show that at the time he signed the paper he was “not in condition to know what he was doing,” the case should not be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>3. Nothing short of evidence precise, clear and indubitable can be allowed to overcome a written instrument. When it does not come up to this measure the case should be withdrawn from the jury.</p>