Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01527/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01527-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

.I 

.. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.ea Court of Appeals 

'l'enth Cfrr.nit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB l 71988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LESLIE J. GEORGE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 

and GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER 

COMPANY and GENCORP, INC. 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 86-1527 

(D.C. No. 84-1347) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District 

Judge.* 

Leslie J. George appeals from an order of the district court 

granting summary judgment to the defendants, General Motors 

Corporation, General Tire & Rubber Company, and Gencorp, Inc. The 

judgment of the district court was based upon its conclusion that 

by agreement between Mr. George and defendants in a prior action, 

Mr. George released the defendants in this action from the 

liability he asserted against them. We affirm. 

The trial court fully and carefully considered the principal 

issues raised in this appeal in a Memo~andum Opinion entered on 

March 11, 1986. With the exception of brief comments, we see no 

*Honorable Layn R. Phillips, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 86-1527 Document: 010110027449 Date Filed: 02/17/1988 Page: 1 
reason for going beyond the Memorandum Opinion; therefore, we 

adopt the conclusions of the district court for the reasons set 

forth in that document. 

I. 

Plaintiff takes issue with the trial court's disposition by 

contending material issues of fact were ignored. 

the release document was ambiguous and the 

improperly ignored evidence that Mr. George did 

release nonsubscribing parties. 

Plaintiff argues 

district judge 

not intend to 

This argument overlooks the premise that the ambiguity of a 

document is a question of law in the first instance. McDonald v. 

Journey, 464 P.2d 560 (N.M. App. 1970). 

consider the evidence 

The trial court was not 

called upon to of intent because it 

concluded the release document was not ambiguous as a matter of 

law. We agree with that conclusion. 

By its very terms, the document unequivocally releases from 

liability all parties involved with the incident which resulted in 

Mr. George's injuries. As noted by the trial court, the kind of 

ambiguity found in Collins v. United States, 708 F.2d 499 (10th 

Cir. 1983), is not present in the instrument in this case. Hence 

Collins is inapposite, and the case is governed by Johnson v. City 

of Las Cruces, 521 P.2d 1037 (N.M. App. 1974). 

II. 

Plaintiff asserts the trial court improperly weighed the 

credibility of conflicting witnesses in arriving at its judgment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-1527 Document: 010110027449 Date Filed: 02/17/1988 Page: 2 
We can find no such weighing in the record, and plaintiff has not 

provided us with a reference to a place in either the record or 

the Memorandum Opinion in which the weighing occurred. 

Nevertheless, since the trial court correctly decided the release 

document was not ambiguous as a matter of law, any weighing of 

evidence, had it occurred, was harmless. 

III. 

Plaintiff argues that the trial court should have found the 

release document was reformed by subsequent agreement. He argues 

that plaintiff's counsel and counsel for one of the signing 

parties agreed to the reformation. He also baldly states, "Though 

the third party to the settlement, Baker and Taylor, failed to 

expressly approve the correction, it acquised (sic) in the 

correction, and should be estopped from denying the correction." 

This argument is made despite the trial court's statement that 

"Baker & Taylor Drilling Co. filed a memorandum in opposition to 

that motion [to reform the settlement agreement] in which it 

denied plaintiff's assertion that the parties had not intended to 

execute a general release." 

Baker & Taylor's opposition to reformation is inconsistent 

with any theory of acquiescence. Nonetheless, as the district 

court correctly concluded, plaintiff failed as a matter of law to 

show mutual mistake; hence, acquiescence is irrelevant. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 86-1527 Document: 010110027449 Date Filed: 02/17/1988 Page: 3 
IV. 

Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot assert the benefit of 

the release agreement because they were not signatories. This is 

a specious effort to avoid the effect of the trial court's 

conclusion that the agreement by its plain language constituted a 

general release. Plaintiff's analysis of New Mexico law is 

nonetheless defective, for the state allows nonsignatory parties 

the benefit of a general release. Cf. Johnson v. City of Las 

Cruces, 521 P.2d at 1038. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 86-1527 Document: 010110027449 Date Filed: 02/17/1988 Page: 4