GLEASON V. GUZMAN
623 P.2d 378 (1981)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Gleason (D) a truck driver and his employer, appealed a decision of
the Court of Appeals which, in a personal injuries action, reversed the grant of summary
judgment to Ds based on a release executed by the guardian of Guzman (P), who was struck on
the head by a vending machine that fell from the truck when she was a minor.
FACTS: Benavidez, then a fourteen-year-old minor, was struck on the head by a vending
machine that fell from a truck operated by D in the course of his employment with Coin
Fresh, Inc. (Ds). Darlene has married and is now known as Darlene Guzman (P). P was taken to
Denver General Hospital for examination. She complained of headache, vomiting and some
disorientation and, after two days of observation and testing, her injury was diagnosed as a
left temporal lobe contusion and she was released as improved. On October 13, 1970, P was
readmitted to the hospital with complaints similar to those previously experienced. Further
testing resulted in a diagnosis of left intratemporal lobe hematoma and P was discharged as
improved on October 20, 1970. P returned to high school and a normal routine. It was
believed that P had fully recovered from the injury. Approximately two years later an
attorney initiated settlement negotiations with Ds' insurance carrier. It was mutually
agreed that the case be settled for $6,114.35. The probate court approved the settlement and
Mr. Benavidez, as duly appointed guardian, executed a general release of his daughter's
claim against Ds. Forty-four months after the accident, P experienced her first epileptic
seizure during her senior year in high school. Other seizures followed. A complaint was
filed in November 1975 for money damages against Ds in the accident of September 29, 1970.
Ds defended with the execution of the prior settlement and filed a motion for summary
judgment on the basis of the guardian's release. P motioned to set aside the release on the
ground that it was executed under a mistake as to the nature of the injury actually
sustained. P presented a neurologist who testified that the first diagnosis of
post-traumatic epilepsy was made after the first seizure in 1974 and that a monitored
program of intermittent electroencephalographic testing between the accident and the seizure
would not have necessarily disclosed the epileptic condition. Ds' motion for summary
judgment was granted. Any mistake existing at the time the release was executed was not a
mutual mistake of fact, but rather a unilateral mistake of prognosis by P. P should have
known that traumatic epilepsy could result from her injury. The court of appeals reversed:
there was evidence upon which the trier of fact could well conclude that the settlement was
based on a basic mistake. Ds appealed contending that Ps only mistake was about future
complications and the release covered both known and unknown conditions.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment