Court Opinion

ID: 9761712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:51:24.987851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:25.532719
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts :
To invalidate this release, appellee must demonstrate that at the time of signing both parties were laboring under a mutual mistake of fact. See Vrabel v. Scholler, 369 Pa. 235, 85 A. 2d 858 (1952); 5 Willis-ton, Contracts §1578 (Rev. ed. 1937). He fails because the relevant mistake was not mutual but rather, if mistake there be, it was appellee’s alone. Clearly, appellants bargained for a release from liability for all injuries, present or future, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected. The extent of appellee’s injuries was not relevant vis-a-vis appellants other than as a basis for the settlement figure. Once this figure was agreed upon, appellants contracted for and received a release covering all injuries without regard to the time at which they might become evident. I therefore conclude that appellants are entitled to a judgment n.o.v., and concur in the majority’s result.