Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James David Edwards, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 552 F.2d 137
May 13, 1977
T. J. Lewis, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., Richard M. Kirby, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before MORGAN and FAY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff James David Edwards, a railroad switchman, sued his employer, defendant Western & Atlantic Railroad, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that the railroad's negligence in maintaining a path next to some railroad tracks had caused injury to his ankle when he climbed off a train to throw a switch and stepped on a rock.
The railroad denied liability on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff had accepted a settlement from the railroad and had executed an instrument releasing the railroad from further liability for the injury. Plaintiff sought to avoid the release on the ground that the parties had executed it under a mutual mistake as to the nature and severity of the injury.
After discovery, the railroad moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in a written order, holding that there was no disputed issue of material fact and that as a matter of law there was no mutual mistake. Record at 97-102. Plaintiff appeals.
Upon careful examination of the record, we affirm. The undisputed facts show, at most, a mistake as to the expected course of healing of plaintiff's injury, and not as to its nature. Such a mistake is not sufficient to avoid the release. See Robertson v. Douglas Steamship Co., 510 F.2d 829, 836 (5th Cir. 1975); Heston v. Chicago and North Western R. Co., 341 F.Supp. 126 (N.D.Ill.1972).
AFFIRMED.