Case Title: Mendenhall v. Vandeventer

Citation: 299 P.2d 457, 61 N.M. 277

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1956-06-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
299 P.2d 457 (1956) 61 N.M. 277 Mildred Wallene MENDENHALL and Stanley Mendenhall, her husband, Appellants, v. H. P. VANDEVENTER, d/b/a Yellow-Checker Cab Company, Appellee. No. 6073. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 27, 1956. Joseph L. Smith, Henry A. Kiker, Jr., Albuquerque, Waldo Spiess, Las Vegas, for appellants. Iden & Johnson, Richard G. Cooper, Albuquerque, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. Appellants, as plaintiffs, sued appellee for $28,575, for personal injuries and property damages, alleged to have been caused by a collision between the automobiles of appellants and appellee, and for medical and hospital expenses. Appellee answered by a general denial, contributory negligence, *458 and set up a release, executed by appellants one month and nine days after the collision, in which appellants acknowledged the receipt of $1,353.75, in full settlement for all injuries and property damages resulting from the accident. Appellants by reply admitted the execution of the release, but sought to avoid the effects thereof by certain allegations respecting mutual mistake. After joinder of issues, defendant moved for a separate and prior trial on the issues raised by appellants' reply to the affirmative defense, under the provisions of Rule 42(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to the effect that "The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim * * * or of any separate issue * * * or issues." The motion was sustained and trial was had on the issue of the validity of the release. At the close of all of appellants' evidence, motion was made by the defendant for a directed verdict, which was sustained by the court, and appellants have appealed. Appellants predicate their appeal upon four alleged errors which they argue under two points: (1) That the court erred in granting defendant's motion for a separate trial on the validity of the release executed by them and in trying the issues separately from the remaining issues; and (2) that the court erred in directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant and against plaintiffs. The granting of a motion for a separate trial on the issue of the validity of a release is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of such discretion shown. There was no abuse of this discretion in the instant case. In Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 5, p. 1217, § 42.03, it is said: Inasmuch as the issue arising upon an affirmative defense, and the reply thereto, is properly an issue in an action to recover for personal injuries, if the reply states facts sufficient to avoid a release which a plaintiff admits he executed and delivered, receiving the money consideration named therein, this would seem to us peculiarly a case where a separate issue as to the validity of a release should be first tried. The danger which may result from attempting to try all of the issues at one time is that the evidence upon the defendant's negligence, or plaintiff's freedom from contributing negligence may create an atmosphere which will produce an unconscious influence upon the triers of fact as to the entirely disconnected and distinct issue of the validity and sufficiency of the release. The rule above referred to has useful application to an issue which, if determined in one way, will end the litigation and render a trial upon the merits unnecessary. The facts of the case at bar made it clear that the issue of the validity of the alleged release should be tried separately. It is appellants' own conduct in signing the release and accepting the $1,353.75 which created the release issue. In view of this action of appellants, they are hardly in a position to complain of the granting of the motion. In furtherance of the convenience of the parties and also of the court and to avoid any prejudice which may arise by trying all of the issues at one time, the issue of the validity of the release was correctly tried first. See, Larsen v. Powell, D.C. 1954, 16 F.R.D. 322; Bowie v. Sorell, 4 Cir., 1953, 209 F.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 781; Kiloski v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C. 1952, 103 F. Supp. 390; Bedser v. Horton Motor Lines, 4 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 406. On December 7, 1952, the appellant, Mildred Wallene Mendenhall, was injured in an automobile accident while driving the *459 family car. There was a collision between it and a car driven by defendant's employee. Her injuries consisted of lacerations on the lower lip and multiple contusions and abrasions, with none of which we are now concerned. She also sustained a comminuted fracture of the right ulna which required surgery. On December 8, 1952, Dr. David G. Clark, appellants' own physician performed an operation on the arm and at that time inserted an intermittenary pin to form a union of the bones. He estimated that it would take from four to six weeks for recovery. Several weeks after the accident a claim adjuster for the defendant called at the Mendenhall home to determine its liability and the feasibility of a settlement. Prior to the settlement the adjuster talked to appellants' physician, on two or three occasions, relative to Mrs. Mendenhall's injuries. The doctor informed him that she would recover in a matter of four or six weeks and that she would have the wire (intermittenary pin) removed from her elbow. On January 16, 1953, the appellants executed the following instrument: It will be noted that the release is, in its terminology, sufficient to indicate that what the parties sought to accomplish by its execution was to end, once and for all, any contention between the parties as to compensation for personal injuries, property damages and possible litigation. It was a compromise of all claims of complaint against the defendant growing out of the accident. If the release is a full settlement and satisfaction of appellants' claim, and it was not obtained by fraud and deceit, the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict and in directing a verdict in his favor. The appellant, Mildred Wallene Mendenhall, did not recover of her injury as anticipated by her doctor within four or six weeks, and a second operation was performed on February 18, 1955, at which time the pin was removed from her arm. In this connection the doctor testified: "Q. And was there anything, Doctor, prior to January 16, 1953, to lead you to believe that recovery would be complicated in this case, or that additional surgery would be necessary? A. No, sir. If I had been forced to give a guess at this time, I would say that the alignment was good and it looked like we were going ahead to an uncomplicated union, and I did not expect any further complications." So far as releases from personal injury claims are concerned, it is generally held that "where the parties are regarded as having contracted with reference to future possibilities, and there is no fraud or other inequitable conduct by the release," a release "cannot be avoided on the ground of mistake merely because the injuries prove more serious than the releasor at the time of executing the release believed them to be." Pom.Eq.Jur., 5th Ed., § 871d. See, also, Annotation in 48 A.L.R. at page 1464. There is no contention of fraud in the instant case. In Farrington v. Harlem Savings Bank, 280 N.Y. 1, 19 N.E.2d 657, it is said: We find the following language in 53 C.J. § 29, p. 1212: Applying the rule of law, as above laid down, to the facts in the instant case, it seems to us that any mistake that may have been made by appellants' doctor was not as to a known injury, to wit, a fractured ulna. That was an observable injury which subsequently failed to clear up during the time anticipated by the doctor. He erred in his prognosis. It was with reference to this injury that settlement was effected and whatever mistake was made was not as to the injury as it manifested itself on Mrs. Mendenhall's limb, but as to what might happen in the course of the attempted cure. Mrs. Mendenhall knew she had a broken ulna; the doctor knew it and so did the adjuster. There was no mistake as to that particular injury, but merely an incorrect prognosis and not diagnosis. *461 Particularly applicable to the question before us is the language of Judge Sanborn, in the case of Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 8 Cir., 116 F. 913, 914, where he points out the difference between prognosis and diagnosis and said, after so doing: We are abundantly satisfied that the following pronouncement in the case of Moruzzi v. Federal Life & Casualty Co., 42 N.M. 35, 75 P.2d 320, 326, 115 A.L.R. 407, rules this case. It follows from what has been said that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER and McGHEE, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., not participating.