Gleason v. Guzman
1981 Colo. LEXIS 569, 623 P.2d 378 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A release for a personal injury claim may be set aside on the grounds of mistake if the mistake relates to the fundamental nature of the injury itself, rather than to the future prognosis or consequences of a known injury. The existence of such a mistake is a factual question, making summary judgment inappropriate when there is a genuine dispute as to whether the releasing party was fully informed about the nature of their injuries at the time of settlement.
Facts:
- On September 29, 1970, fourteen-year-old Darlene Benavidez was struck on the head by a vending machine that fell from a truck operated by Irwin Gleason.
- She was hospitalized and diagnosed with a left temporal lobe contusion and later an intratemporal lobe hematoma.
- After being discharged from the hospital on October 20, 1970, Benavidez returned to her normal routine, and both she and her parents believed she had fully recovered from the injury.
- Approximately two years later, her father, Mr. Benavidez, acting as her legal guardian, agreed to settle her claim against Gleason and Coin Fresh, Inc. for $6,114.35.
- Mr. Benavidez executed a general release of his daughter's claims, which was approved by a probate court.
- At the time of the settlement, neither Benavidez nor her parents were aware of any risk that she might develop epilepsy as a result of the head injury.
- In May 1974, approximately forty-four months after the accident and nearly two years after the settlement, Benavidez experienced her first epileptic seizure.
- A neurologist subsequently diagnosed her with post-traumatic epilepsy resulting from the 1970 head injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Darlene Guzman filed a negligence complaint in the district trial court seeking damages against Irwin Gleason and Coin Fresh, Inc.
- The defendants filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of a prior release.
- Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment based on the release, and Guzman filed a counter-motion to set aside the release for mistake.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding any mistake was one of prognosis.
- Guzman, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.
- The defendants, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment upholding a personal injury release appropriate when there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether the releasing party was mistaken about the fundamental nature and character of the injury, as opposed to merely being mistaken about the future prognosis or consequences of a known injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Quinn, J.
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the release was executed under a mistake as to the nature of the injury. A release may be set aside if the releasor was under a mistaken impression that they were fully informed about the nature of the injuries. The distinction between an unknown injury (mistake of diagnosis) and an unknown consequence of a known injury (mistake of prognosis) is not always clear. In this case, there is sufficient evidence to create a factual issue for a jury as to whether the guardian believed the injury was minor and fully resolved, without any awareness of the risk of a serious, latent condition like epilepsy. This mistake would relate to the basic character of the injury itself, not just its future course. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Hodges, C.J.
Yes. Summary judgment was appropriate because any mistake was a matter of prognosis, not diagnosis, and therefore does not warrant setting aside the release as a matter of law. The initial injury, an intratemporal lobe hematoma, was correctly diagnosed. The subsequent development of post-traumatic epilepsy is a potential consequence or complication of that known injury, not a different injury altogether. A mistake regarding the future course of recovery from a known injury is a mistake of prognosis. Public policy favors the finality of settlements, and allowing releases to be voided for unforeseen consequences would undermine the entire settlement process. The guardian explicitly acknowledged in probate court that the settlement was final regardless of future developments.
Concurring - Erickson, J.
No. Summary judgment was procedurally improper, and the case should be remanded for a jury trial. The trial court erred by resolving disputed issues of fact in a summary judgment hearing, especially after a jury trial had been demanded. The critical question of whether the development of epilepsy constituted a mistake in diagnosis (unknown injury) or prognosis (unknown consequence) is a question of fact that should be resolved by a jury, not by a judge as a matter of law. While concurring in the result to reverse the summary judgment, this opinion expresses concern with the majority's subjective test and shares the dissent's public policy concerns regarding the finality of releases.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'mistake of fact' doctrine for personal injury releases, clarifying that the line between a voidable mistake of diagnosis and a non-voidable mistake of prognosis can be a question of fact for a jury. It makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment to enforce a release when a serious, latent injury manifests years after a settlement based on a seemingly minor or resolved initial injury. The ruling emphasizes a fact-intensive inquiry into the releasing party's knowledge and understanding at the time of the agreement, potentially increasing challenges to general releases in cases of subsequently discovered conditions.
Unlock the full brief for Gleason v. Guzman