Tindall v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 58 Wash. 118
• 107 P. 1045
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 903

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review — Harmless Eebob — Release—Pleading—Evidence. It is not prejudicial error, in an action for personal injuries, to admit evidence of a release of damages not pleaded in the answer, where the release was first properly admitted on cross-examination of the appellant affecting his credibility, and explained by him without any claim of fraud or duress, on redirect examination.</p> <p>Release—Consideration—Sufficiency. A release of damages, advisedly signed by an injured servant as a condition precedent to, and for the purpose of securing, reemployment, is given upon sufficient consideration, and is binding in the absence of fraud, although no definite time of service was agreed upon.</p> <p>Release—Mutuality. Such an agreement is not void for want of mutuality because the reemployment was not for a definite time, where the company agreed to allow the employee to work “under the same circumstances as before the accident.”</p> <p>Release—Execution—Validity. A release of damages given by an injured servant in consideration of reemployment is binding upon the servant although not signed by the employer, where .the contract was executed by reinstating and continuing him in employment for more than six months.</p>