Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2915, 153 F.2d 757, 164 A.L.R. 387 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general release of claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act is invalid if an injured employee signs it, reasonably relying on their attorney's misrepresentation that it is merely a receipt for lost wages and tips, provided the attorney acted beyond the scope of their implied authority to compromise the entire personal injury claim.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a waiter for the Pennsylvania Railroad Co., suffered personal injuries while in the company's service on February 16, 1943.
- On March 19, 1943, plaintiff executed a release for $150 after the defendant's claim agent, Brown, told him the payment was only for lost tips and wages, and plaintiff, relying on this representation, did not read the document.
- Between March and July 1943, plaintiff made efforts to work but remained incapacitated, leading him to seek more money from Brown in late July or early August.
- Unable to agree with Brown, plaintiff subsequently engaged an attorney named Reich, instructing him to collect his lost wages and tips.
- In August 1943, Reich presented plaintiff with a release form, telling him the $600 payment was solely for his lost earnings and tips, and that by signing, he would receive full retirement pay and the company would 'take care of him'.
- Relying on Reich's statements and again not reading the document, plaintiff signed the general release, totaling $750 with the previous payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a waiter, brought an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act against the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. in a federal trial court for personal injuries.
- The jury in the trial court returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff.
- The defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Co., appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 a general release for personal injuries, signed by an employee, invalid if the employee's attorney misrepresented its contents as merely a receipt for lost wages and tips, thereby exceeding the scope of their implied authority, and the employee reasonably relied on this misrepresentation without reading the document?
Opinions:
Majority - L. Hand, Circuit Judge
Yes, a general release for personal injuries, signed by an employee, is invalid if the employee's attorney misrepresented its contents as merely a receipt for lost wages and tips, thereby exceeding the scope of their implied authority, and the employee reasonably relied on this misrepresentation without reading the document. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, including the validity of releases, is a matter of federal law, as established in Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co. An attorney has no implied authority to compromise a client's claim; such authority must be explicit. If the jury found that the plaintiff retained Reich only to collect lost wages and tips, then Reich's procurement of a general release exceeded his authority. The plaintiff was justified in relying on his lawyer's statements about the document's contents and was not negligent for not reading it under such circumstances. The jury's verdict, implicitly finding that Reich acted beyond a limited retainer, was supported by sufficient evidence.
Concurring - Frank, Circuit Judge
Yes, the judgment should be affirmed, agreeing with Judge Hand's conclusion that the lawyer acted beyond his authority and the release was invalid. Judge Frank adds that the court should candidly acknowledge the need for special protection for ordinary employees in personal injury release cases, similar to the historical treatment of seamen as 'wards of admiralty.' He critiques the strict application of the 'objective' theory of contracts, noting its 'needless complexities' and frequent 'harsh' results when applied uniformly without differentiation for contexts like employee injury releases. Courts often find indirect ways (e.g., 'mutual mistake of fact' through imputed knowledge) to relieve injured plaintiffs. Instead, the court should forthrightly state that economic inequality between employers and employees warrants judicial guardianship, ensuring that releases for small considerations, signed without full comprehension, can be disregarded. This approach would bring certainty and align with social policy regarding obligations to injured employees.
Dissenting - Swan, Circuit Judge
No, the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Judge Swan agrees with the principle that a release is invalid if a lawyer with a limited retainer misrepresents its scope to the client. However, he believes the affirmance on the ground of a limited retainer for Mr. Reich was based on an issue not properly argued by the parties, not clearly submitted to the jury, and not sufficiently supported by the evidence. He points out that the plaintiff's own testimony, as well as Reich's, indicated that Reich caused the plaintiff to be examined by a doctor to ascertain the extent of his injuries, which seems inconsistent with a limited retainer solely for wages and tips. He argues that when an injured employee engages an attorney who investigates injuries and makes a complete settlement, the matter should generally be conclusive unless the employer practiced fraud on the attorney.
Analysis:
This case establishes important precedent regarding the scope of an attorney's authority and the validity of releases in the context of employer-employee personal injury claims under federal law. The majority's ruling reinforces that an attorney's implied authority does not extend to compromising a client's claim, thereby safeguarding injured individuals from inadvertently relinquishing their rights. Judge Frank's concurrence, while not binding, articulates a significant legal philosophy advocating for judicial recognition of economic disparities, suggesting that courts should adopt a more protective stance towards injured employees, akin to 'wards of admiralty,' in such transactions. This judicial skepticism towards employer-employee releases for minimal consideration, especially when misrepresentation is involved, could influence future interpretations of contract formation and the enforceability of settlements in contexts with power imbalances.
