Spaulding v. Zimmerman,

116 N.W.2d 704 (1962)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The original action was brought against Zimmerman (Ds) by Spaulding's (P) father, as natural guardian for his son, David, who was injured in an auto accident. P's injuries were diagnosed by the family doctor as a severe crushing of the chest with multiple rib fractures, a severe cerebral concussion with petechial hemorrhages of the brain, and bilateral fractures of the clavicles. P was referenced for further examination, and x-ray studies of his chest indicated an aorta aneurysm with which P was then suffering. Further, examination revealed no aneurysm. At Ds' request, P was examined again, and the Dr. reported that there was an aneurysm and that he wanted to see an x-ray of the lungs taken immediately following the accident; the conclusion being if it was not present immediately following the accident, it came from the accident. It was apparent that at trial, neither P nor his father was then aware that P was suffering from an aorta aneurysm but believed that he was recovering from his injuries. Settlement was reached for $6,500. Two years later, P went for his army reserve physical, and the aneurysm was revealed to P, and immediate surgery was recommended. P reached majority and instituted this action for additional damages. The trial court set aside the settlement. This appeal followed. Ds contend that the court was without jurisdiction to vacate the settlement because their counsel then possessed information, unknown to P, that at the time he was suffering from an aorta aneurysm which may have resulted from the accident, because (1) no mutual mistake of fact was involved; (2) no duty rested upon them to disclose information to P which they could assume had been disclosed to him by his own physicians; (3) insurance limitations, as well as physical injuries, formed the basis for the settlement; and (4) P's motion to vacate the order for settlement and to set aside the releases was barred by the limitations in Rule 60.02 of Rules of Civil Procedure.