Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintiffdefendantattorneynegligenceequitytrialmotionleasecontributory negligence
settlementplaintiffdefendantdamageslitigationattorneynegligencestatuteequityappealtrialtestimonyaffidavitmotionwillcontributory negligenceplaintiff's attorney

Related Cases

Tax Authority, Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 187 N.J. 4, 898 A.2d 512
View Case »
In re PSE & G Shareholder Litigation, 173 N.J. 258, 801 A.2d 295
View Case »
Taylor v. Sheldon, 172 Ohio St. 118, 173 N.E.2d 892, 15 O.O.2d 206
View Case »
In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952
View Case »
Orlowski v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 723
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Keller v. Wolf, 239 Minn. 397, 58 N.W.2d 891

Facts

The plaintiff, Pearl Keller, was injured when struck by an automobile while walking on a public street. After retaining an attorney, she agreed to a settlement of $7,000 on the day of the trial, despite having a lien for attorney's fees. The plaintiff later sought to set aside the settlement, claiming she was under a mistaken belief regarding the settlement amount in relation to the lien. The trial court found that she was not laboring under any mistake and that the settlement was provident given the circumstances.

Plaintiff, 23 years of age, was injured on the night of May 22, 1951, while walking on a public street in Long Prairie, Minnesota, when she was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Richard Wolf and owned by defendant George Wolf.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside the release and stipulation for settlement.

The issue presented by the motion involved in this appeal is not plaintiff's contributory negligence as such but rather whether or not the settlement was provident in view of the Probable evidence of plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Rule

A stipulation for settlement may be set aside for fraud, collusion, mistake, or if it was improvidently made and should not be allowed to stand in equity and good conscience.

The law favors settlement of claims without recourse to litigation. However, it is well settled that a stipulation for settlement may be set aside or avoided: (1) For fraud or collusion; (2) for mistake; or (3) where the stipulation was improvidently made and in equity and good conscience should not be allowed to stand.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff's understanding of the settlement and the circumstances surrounding it did not support her claim of mistake. The trial judge's conclusion that the settlement was provident was based on the conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff's contributory negligence and the potential challenges in proving her case at trial.

In deciding whether or not to settle for an amount less than the full measure of the damages, an attorney must consider the probable evidence which will be presented and its potential effect on the jury.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the settlement was provident given the plaintiff's doubtful right of recovery due to contributory negligence.

In view of the probability of adverse testimony as indicated in the affidavits of both counsel, the opinions of both counsel as set forth in the same affidavits, and the ‘facts' relating to the scene of the accident known to the attorneys together with the previous record of the jury which would decide the case, plaintiff's physical condition, and the competence of opposing counsel as expressed by plaintiff's attorney, it is our opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge that the settlement was provident.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the settlement was provident and that the plaintiff's likelihood of recovery was doubtful.

Defendants' evidence would have shown that plaintiff was walking near the center line and some of defendants' evidence would have shown that she was on the wrong side of the road; * * * that there was a sidewalk for plaintiff to walk along and upon adjacent to the roadway; * * * that plaintiff was guilty of a violation of * * * (statute).

You must be