Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2d 317
The plaintiff, a section worker, sued the Canadian Pacific Railroad under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51-60, to recover damages for
an injury to his left leg and foot which occurred while employed by the
defendant. The railroad moved for summary judgment on the basis of a
settlement agreement signed by Fournier which generally released the railroad
from all liability arising from the accident. Finding no issue of fact to be tried
that would permit the release to be set aside, Chief Judge Holden of the District
of Vermont, after receiving affidavits from both sides, granted summary
judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff urges that triable issues of fact are
presented with respect to the validity of the release. We agree, and reverse.
In an F.E.L.A. case a release may be set aside if both parties acted under a
mutual mistake of fact or the railroad's representative deceived the plaintiff as
to the contents of the release. Callen v. Pennsylvania R. R., 332 U.S. 625, 630,
68 S.Ct. 296, 92 L.Ed. 242 (1948); Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.
R., 342 U.S. 359, 72 S.Ct. 312, 96 L.Ed. 398 (1952). On a motion for summary
judgment, furthermore, the inferences drawn from the facts before the court
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176
(1962) (per curiam); Empire Electronics Co. v. United States, 311 F.2d 175,
179-80 (2d Cir. 1962) (Kaufman, J.). "If when so viewed, reasonable men
might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied and the case
tried on its merits." Empire Electronics, supra, 311 F.2d at 180, quoting
Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co., 135 F.2d 101, 106 (8th Cir. 1943).
Applying this standard, inferences of fraud or mistake could be drawn from the
materials before the district court in the present case.
3
The plaintiff claims he was told and believed that he was settling solely a claim
for back wages, which would support setting aside the release, whereas
defendant denies plaintiff's assertions and relies on the clear language of the
release. Although, as Chief Judge Holden has indicated, trial would likely result
in a judgment for the defendant, "the court, on a motion for summary judgment,
cannot try issues of fact but can only determine whether there are issues of fact
to be tried; and, once having determined this affirmatively must leave those
issues for determination at trial." Empire Electronics Co. v. United States, 311
F.2d 175, 179 (2d Cir. 1962). Since issues of fact are present here, we reverse.