Case Name: The Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Walker
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1893-05-15
Citations: 92 Ga. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Walker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
The Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Walker.
1. Where a railroad company negligently inflicts a personal injury on one of its employees, and thereupon has him treated for the injury by the company’s surgeon, a payment made by the company to the surgeon, even at the employee’s request, is no consideration for a release by the employee to the company for all damages occasioned by the injury, the company being liable for expenses of treatment which the injury occasioned.
2. The evidence warranted the verdict and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
May 15, 1893.
Action for damages. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. June term, 1892.
Walker sued the railroad company for personal injuries sustained by him in a collision. He obtained a verdict for $808, and defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled.
The motion contains the general grounds, and alleges that the court erred in charging : “ The burden of proof to establish this plea of settlement is on the defendant, the railroad company, setting it up. The agreement of settlement, which is in evidence, recites a consideration, to wit $5 paid for a medical bill. The plaintiff attacks this recital of consideration and says that no advantage, legal or equitable, was received by him for signing that paper, if he did sign it (which he denies, and as to which I will charge you presently); and hence he says that the agreement does not have any effect in law to bar his legal rights. The agreement reciting the consideration, to wit the medical bill paid, the presumption is it was a bill which the plaintiff owed. If you believe from the evidence that this medical bill related only to the services of Dr. Page in attending the injuries received by the plaintiff in the collision in question here, and the plaintiff made no agreement to pay that bill, and none is reasonable and fairly inferable or to be implied on his part to pay it, in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed to you in the evidence, and you further believe from the evidence that it was for services of the railroad surgeon sent by it to the plaintiff and paid by it, the contract of settlement would be what we lawyers call a nudum pactum, a naked agreement, without any valid consideration, because of no advantage, legal or equitable, to the plaintiff, and it would not bar his legal right to maintain this suit.”

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed,
Jackson, Leptwich & Black, for plaintiff in error.
Reid & Stewart, contra..