Court Opinion

ID: 9657596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:31:11.232705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:51.753257
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
*270This court has heretofore indicated it favors the compromise and settlement of disputed claims outside of court. Johnson v. Norfolk, 76 S.D. 565, 82 N.W.2d 656, and settlement agreements and releases are contracts subject to rescission "for the same reasons as other contracts, including mistake of fact." Nilsson v. Krueger, 69 S.D. 312, 9 N.W.2d 783.
In this particular case plaintiff suffered injuries on August 20, 1962, as a result of an accident caused by defendant's negligence. At the time of the accident she felt her neck snap and experienced pain. Shortly thereafter she experienced pain in her neck, was bothered by headaches, had dizzy spells, and fainting spells for which she received medical care. On the 5th day of September, 1962, with these known injuries she signed a release of her claims against defendant. The present action was not commenced until September 22, 1965. According to paragraph IV of the complaint the injuries alleged are the identical injuries received and known by plaintiff at the time she signed the release.
This is not a case, therefore, of a complainant who has injuries she did not know about or suspect to exist at the time she signed the general release. According to SDC 47.0241 a general release does not extend "to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release." Plaintiff's injuries were all known to her and existed at the time she filed the release. In my opinion, therefore, this case falls squarely within the rule stated in Petersen v. Kemper, 70 S.D. 427, 18 N.W.2d 294, in which the court said "Neither the statute nor the equity rule referred to above applies to after effects or unexpected consequences of injuries known to exist at the time the release was made. As to them the release is binding and conclusive, subject to legal and equitable defenses applicable to contracts generally." This would appear to be the rule in California under an identical statute. In the recent case of Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Copeland, 248 Cal.App.2d 561, 56 Cal.Rptr. 794, the California court held a general release extinguished plaintiff's cause of action where at the time the release was signed plaintiff had been *271treated for a neck injury and also experienced some pain in the region of her lower back for which she did not receive medical treatment. After the release was signed the condition in her lower back became serious. The court said at the time plaintiff signed the release she was aware of the pain in her back and must have known it could have been caused by the accident, therefore, the release prevented further recovery.
Furthermore, in my opinion, as a matter of law, plaintiff is barred from recovery because of her failure to rescind promptly after discovering the nature and extent of her injuries. She waited nearly three years to commence her action during which time she held various kinds of employment, was married, did considerable traveling, and consulted with various doctors about her injuries and complaints.
The majority opinion cites the California case of Backus v. Sessions, 17 Cal.2d 380, 110 P.2d 51, as authority why the rules of rescission do not apply to this situation. Quoting therefrom it is said that plaintiff "is not attempting to avoid a contract which he made, but is showing that he did not make the contract which he apparently made." This rule has no application to the present facts. It applies to an injured person who is incompetent, dazed, or under opiates at the time the release is signed. In the Backus case plaintiff signed the release 24 hours after the accident, at which time he was suffering from a fractured wrist and ankle, bruised arm and back, injuries on the face, head and left eye, and concussion. He could not recognize his friends. He was in a dazed condition, opiates had been administered to him and the court found at the time the release was signed he was not competent and the release was void. Under these circumstances the court held the release did not settle his claim for impairment of vision and ultimate blindness which resulted from injuries to the optic nerve of which he had no knowledge at the time the release was signed.
In the present case there is no suggestion in the record that when plaintiff signed the release she was incompetent. Unfortunately she was an immature young girl and the settlement admittedly was grossly inadequate. However, after the long do-*272lay in bringing action, she is not entitled to recover in accordance with our former rules, Nilsson v. Krueger, 69 S.D. 312, 9 N.W.2d 783, and Petersen v. Kemper, 70 S.D. 427, 18 N.W.2d 294. I would' reverse.