Court Opinion

ID: 9456019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:40:06.579603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:49.616380
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Upon consideration of a motion to enlarge the time for filing a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing filed by Charlie W. Wooten, Jr.,
It is Adjudged and Ordered that the motion for enlargement of time is granted, and the petition for rehearing is filed and granted.
The district court, on a motion for summary judgment, held Wooten’s suit barred by a release he had signed. On appeal we held that the only potential defect in the release was a possibility of mutual mistake with respect to the permanency of Wooten’s injury and that this question presented a genuine issue of fact which must be resolved by a jury. In all other respects, we held the release valid.
The judgment of the district court was vacated and remanded with instructions:
“If the jury finds that the accident did not leave Wooten permanently disabled, the release is valid; but if the accident caused a permanent partial disability, the release must be set aside.
“On this issue the burden of proof is the shipowner’s. . . .
“Finally, the district judge correctly found no evidence of fraud or overreaching to taint the settlement. Consequently, we decline to hold, as Woot*824en urges, the release invalid as a matter of law, or to order the submission of these issues to a jury.”
Wooten now asks clarification: should only the question of permanent partial disability or should all of the facts about the release, particularly whether the amount of consideration was adequate, be tried by the jury?
We reiterate that the only question for the jury to resolve concerning the validity of the release is whether the accident left Wooten permanently disabled. The amount of the release is not a controversy that should be submitted to the jury because if the jury finds Wooten suffered no permanent partial disability, we have already ruled the release would be valid. On the other hand, if Wooten suffered permanent partial disability, the amount of damages should be determined by the jury without reference to the amount the parties considered adequate when they dealt with only temporary disability in mind.
We leave to the sound discretion of the district judge the propriety of separate trials and the use and form of special verdicts and interrogatories. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b) and 49.