144 Iowa 697 | Iowa | 1909
The negligence charged against the defendant is as follows:
That at said time, without giving any signals required to be given by trains approaching highway crossings, the defendant recklessly, wantonly, and negligently, at a high and dangerous rate of speed, ran an engine and cars upon and over said street crossing while plaintiff was driving his team thereon, and in such a wanton and negligent manner as to not allow plaintiff to pass over said crossing in safety, but ran said train upon and against plaintiff’s said team and against plaintiff, who was at the time riding in
There was enough testimony to take the case to the jury upon some or all of these specifications, and we do not understand that the verdict was directed because of absence of proof of negligence. The ruling was grounded upon two propositions: First, that plaintiff was as a matter of law guilty of contributory negligence under the undisputed facts; and, second, that the testimony showed beyond all reasonable dispute a settlement of all of plaintiff’s claims. Some rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony are. complained of, which so far as material will be considered during the course of the opinion.
When I was in the hospital some one tried to get me to sign a paper for the railroad company. There were no papers presented to. me' that I could read. At the time the paper was presented to me I was in bed in the hospital in Eldora. . . . Q. Did you understand that any papers signed by you that day were in settlement of the injury you received in the collision? (Objected to by the defendant as calling for the conclusion of the witness, and improper and leading. He should be required to say what was said and done and who said or did it. Objection sustained and plaintiff excepts.) . . . Witness: I don’t know who the party was who presented the papers to me.
I don’t remember signing a paper in Dr. Morse’s office. I remember the preacher and Mr. Tresemer and another man there. I had known the preacher ten years and attended his church occasionally. I don’t know how long they were there that day. Dr. Morse was there part of the time. It was about eight o’clock in the evening. While they were there I signed a paper. The preacher did the talking to me. I signed Exhibit One. I wrote my name when I was in bed.- I understand what a person is saying by the motion of the lips, but I do' not hear what they are saying to me. Mr. Guenther told me that I would get $75 to cure my leg. The banker came and got the paper that was given me, and the nurse brought me the $75. The nurse brought the money to me the next morning, and a man came from the bank and I gave him the $75. I after-wards got the money out of the bank and used it. I bought some clothes with it. I did not understand that the railway company would pay my hospital bill. Mr. Guenther did not read the paper [Exhibit One] over to me, and I didn’t know what the $75 was for, and didn’t know the money came from the railway company, and I don’t know I got the money because I signed the paper [Exhibit One]. Mr. Guenther told me I should sign my name to that paper and I would get $75. He also said that was to heal my leg. I do not remember any more that Mr. Guenther said to me, and I do not remember all that he said to me. I did not - understand all that Mr. Guenther said to me. I understood he said I should sign the paper, but understood no more. I also understood that the money was to heal my leg.
The testimony for the defendant upon this subject:
Pitt, the claim agent, testified as follows:
I came back to Eldora on October 10, and saw Mr. Blossi at the hospital. I had no conversation with him. A minister by the name of Guenther, Albert Tresemer, and Dr. Morse were present, and the nurse was in and out of the room. The minister communicated back and forth
Rev. Guenther, who acted as an interpreter, testified regarding this transaction as follows:
I ám a minister of the gospel, and have no other business. I knew Mr. Blossi was sick before I went to talk with him, and understood I was called by Dr. Morse, who was the physician attending Mr. Blossi at the time. I was not the agent of the railway company at that time, and never represented the. railway company, and did not go there for that purpose on that occasion. I went there because I was called to explain’ to Mr. Blossi and translate •to him some matters. I went as an interpreter. He attended my church sometimes within the ten or twelve years I knew him. He didn’t belong to my church, but I guess he did belong to my denomination. I couldn’t say for sure. . . . Mr. Blossi answered the questions or statements I made to him in German. I was there as an interpreter, and interpreted to Mr. Blossi what Mr. Pitt said he was willing to give to settle the case. I explained to Mr. Blossi that the company was willing to give him $75, and pay his doctor bills. I included the hospital bill in the doctor .bills. Mr. Blossi stated that he was satisfied with that. Mr. Pitt told me to explain to Mr. Blossi that the company
I am a German, and talk that language. I know John Blossi. I first met him twenty-three years ago, and have known him ever since. I have talked with him from time to time during that period. I am able to talk with and understand him. I saw him in the hospital at Eldora soon after he met with his injury in September, 1906, and saw him more than once. I saw him and talked with him the third day after he was hurt, and called on him several times after that to talk to him for Dr. Morse, to act as an interpreter. I remember of being there on October 10, 1906, when Mr. Guenther and other persons were there. It was shortly after five o’clock in the afternoon. I came at the request of Dr. Morse, made over the telephone. When I arrived, I found Dr. Morse, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Guenther there. I talked with Mr. Blossi after I had been there a few minutes. Mr. Guenther also talked with him while I was there. I understood what Mr. Guenther said to him. I did not talk exactly the same kind of German to Blossi as Mr. Guenther did. Mr. Guenther talked the high German to him and I talked the low German, the kind that is used around on the street, you might say. It might be called dialect. Mr. Blossi answered the questions that I put to him. Q. Did you see anything about him or observe anything in his conversation during any of the time you saw him in the hospital different than the way he had been or had talked prior to or before his injury ? A. No; I couldn’t see any difference. On the occasion when Mr. Guenther and Mr. Pitt were there I talked to Mr. Blossi about what the company was going to pay him to settle his claim for the injury he had received. I explained to him that the company stood ready to give him $75 and pay his hospital bill, and he was satisfied. He said that was good. Mr. Guenther and Mr. Pitt were there when I came. I did not do anything there in talking to him other than to act as interpreter between Mr. Blossi and Mr. Pitt. Q. State what, if anything, you said to him about whether he could get anything more from the company for his injury, if he accepted the $75 and the payment of his doctor bills. A. As I remember, I read
Dr. Morse’s testimony with reference to this matter was substantially as follows:
I was present at the time a settlement was made with him. It is my recollection that Mr. Guenther tallied matters over with him before Mr. Tresemer came in. I understand German fairly well, but Mr. Blossi has a dialect that is peculiar to himself. It is low German, and while it is difficult for me to understand him, I understood a good deal of what he said as to his needs and wants. I saw’ him sign Exhibit No. One. Mr. McLaughlin: State whether or not you saw any one read or translate Exhibit
This is practically the entire record made upon the issue of settlement, and it is apparent therefrom that plaintiff’s mind was in a normal condition; that no misrepresentations were made to him of any kind, and no fraud perpetrated. The rqost that can be claimed from the testimony offered by plaintiff is that he did not understand the contents or purport of the paper signed by him; but this was due to no fault of the defendant or its agent. The interpreters were plaintiff’s own friends, and they were not even selected by the defendant company or any of its agents. Dr. Morse made the selection, and there is no intimation that they did not act in the best of faith and tried as well as they could to have plaintiff understand the effect of the papers he was signing. That he did understand it we have no doubt, but, assuming that he did not, there is no claim that defendant was in any way responsible for his lack of knowledge. It did everything it could, paid out its money on the strength of the settlement, and was guilty, of no. fraud, misrepresentation or deceit. Surely
In this case plaintiff had it in his power to fully comprehend the situation. He knew the purpose of the meeting. He knew that defendant, through its agent, was endeavoring to pay him something for his injuries and to settle his claim. He received the money offered by the defendant and signed the release and agreement of settlement, knowing, of course, that it must have relation to this matter. The interpreters endeavored to acquaint him with its contents, and, if he did not know of them, it was his own fault. He was in his right mind and in full possession of his mental faculties, and there was no attempt to mislead or in any manner deceive him. His testimony indicates that he knew he was getting the money in payment for his injuries or some of them, and, if he did not understand just - what the payment was for, he should have made further inquiries. To say that under this record a jury might disregard the settlement and find a verdict for plaintiff would be equivalent to saying that no settlement can safely be made with one not familiar with the English language. Of course, no such rule should be established. There is no claim that the paper was not correctly translated to plaintiff, and, if he did not know its exact terms, it was his own fault. The case is not different from one where a party having the ability to read and understand a paper fails to do so and signs it. without reading. In such case he is bound unless it appears that some fraud or deceit was practiced upon him, either to prevent his reading or by fraudulently stating the contents
A written contract of release can not be annulled or avoided by proof that one of the parties to it, who was sound in mind and' able in body, could not read or write, did not know the terms of the agreement, and neglected to ask any one to read it to him when he signed it. A written contract is the highest evidence of the terms of an agreement between the parties to it, and it is the duty of every contracting party to learn and know its contents before he signs and delivers it. He owes this duty to the other party to the contract, because the latter may, and probably will, pay his money and shape his action in reliance upon the agreement. He owes it to the public, which, as a matter of public policy, treats the written contract as a conclusive answer, to the question, What was the agreement? If one can read his contract, his failure to do so is such gross negligence that it will estop him from denying it, unless he has been dissuaded from reading it by some trick or artifice practiced by the opposite party. If he can not read it, it is as much his duty to procure some reliable person to read and explain it to him before he signs .it as it would be not to read it before he signed it if he were able to do so; and his failure to obtain a reading and explanation of it is such gross negligence, as will estop him from avoiding it on the ground that he was ignorant of its contents.
See, also, Railway Co. v. Difendaffer, 125 Fed., 893 (62 C. C. A. 1) and cases cited. The case, in so far as the settlement is concerned, is ruled by Kilmartin v. Railway Co., 137 Iowa, 64; Nason v. Railway Co., 130 Iowa, 533; Douda v. Railway Co., 141 Iowa, 82.
We have gone over the testimony with care, and have set out all that is material upon the point which is regarded as decisive, and reach the conclusion that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for defendant.
The judgment must be, and it is, affirmed.