113 Neb. 393 | Neb. | 1925
This action was originally brought by Peter Ostegaard before the compensation commissioner, to recover as an employee of and against Adams & Kelly Company, appellant herein, for damages alleged to have been sustained by him while in the employment of such company on January 21, 1922, and which resulted in the loss of his left eye, and
Ostegaard answered, in substance admitting the settlement, payment and judgment rendered for the eye, but further alleged that the injury caused him to have and be afflicted with tuberculosis, which tuberculosis he had at the time of the settlement for the eye, and judgment affirming and approving same entered, but that he was not at the time cognizant of the fact that he had tuberculosis; and neither was defendant, and neither could have had such knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence; that such tuberculosis was rapidly progressive, which depleted him both mentally and physically, and so undermined his health as to permanently and totally disable him. The reply denies all new matter in the answer, except as it specifically admits allegations of the company’s pleading.
While the case was pending, Ostegaard died, and the action was then revived as to him in the name of Regine Ostegaard, his widow, as a dependent. Pleadings were remodelled so far as alleging his death and her relation to him and her dependency.
On the issues thus joined, trial was had to the court and judgment entered for appellee Regine Ostegaard for 225
We have considered the evidence in the light of the able briefs of the parties and fully realize that the authorities are not uniform in their holdings. This, however, is largely owing to the different wording of the different statutes. We are committed to the rule that this act has for its object to deal justly as between employee and employer; that the statute is made broad, so as to include, as it does necessarily, the improvident as well as the provident, thus the state becomes an interested party, as the improvident may become charges, demanding its care and supervision. Also, on the line of good citizenship, for as is its citizenship, so is the state; that small payments from time to time tend to prevent precipitate waste, and are favored; that one who relies on a lump-sum payment or settlement must bring himself clearly within the statute as to the facts entering into such adjustment as well as the law governing same. Bailey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 99 Neb. 109; Perry v. Huffman Automobile Co., 104 Neb. 211.
In this case the evidence sustains the trial court, and the record warrants concluding, as we do, that the settlement was for the loss of the eye and the usual, or reasonably to be expected, consequences thereof, and no more; that Ostegaard at the time of the settlement and at the time of the rendition of the respective judgments affirming and approving same, by reason of such injury, became and was afflicted with tuberculosis, from which disease he afterward died; that the settlement as made and approved was clearly as to both plaintiff and defendant buttressed on . a mistake of fact; that neither party knew, or by reasonable diligence could have known, of such affliction, and that such tuberculosis was not for that reason taken into consideration at the time of settlement; that.as to the contention involved herein their minds did not, and could not, have met; hence, as to it they did not contract, and neither was it covered by the settlement or judgments, and that plaintiff has
The judgment of the trial court follows the law as announced by us in Simpson v. Omaha & C. B. Street R. Co., 107 Neb. 779. There is no controversy as to the right of the widow as a dependent to recover, as such, if the husband, if living, could recover. The judgment of the trial court should be, and is,
Affirmed.