## Facts

- R. L. Mitchell, a truck driver for Herrin Transportation Co., was injured in a collision while driving in the course and scope of his employment.
- The other driver, William W. Crane, was acting in the course and scope of employment for C.C. Sanitation Co., Inc.
- Mitchell asserted substantial personal-injury damages (about $40,000), including pain and suffering, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and medical expenses.
- Herrin asserted accident-related losses totaling $388.65, including property damage and a physician bill paid on Mitchell’s behalf.
- A claims adjuster involved in handling Herrin’s claim presented two releases in favor of Crane and C.C. Sanitation:
  - A joint release signed by Herrin and Mitchell for $388.65.
  - An individual release signed by Mitchell for $62.12 for his own medical expenses.
- Mitchell alleged he signed the releases only because he was threatened with discharge from Herrin if he refused, and that the releases were procured through duress and fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether releases of tort claims are voidable for duress when an employee signs after being threatened with termination if he refuses.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact on duress and fraud sufficient to preclude enforcing the releases as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Crane and C.C. Sanitation and remanded.
- The court held the evidence, viewed favorably to Mitchell, raised a fact issue as to whether the releases were procured by duress and coercion arising from threatened job loss.
- The court concluded it was error to enforce the releases on summary judgment because the voluntariness of Mitchell’s assent was for the factfinder on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when the record presents a genuine dispute of material fact; doubts and inferences are resolved against the movant.
- A release is subject to avoidance if obtained through duress that overcomes the signer’s free will.
- Economic duress may arise from threats of otherwise lawful action when used coercively to compel surrender of a valid legal claim, particularly where the pressure exploits unequal bargaining power.
- Whether a discharge threat operated as permissible bargaining or coercion is ordinarily a fact question when supported by competent summary-judgment evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee’s evidence that he signed nominal-value releases only after being threatened with job loss raised a triable issue of economic duress and fraud, requiring reversal of summary judgment enforcing the releases.


Mitchell v. C.C. Sanitation Co., 430 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968)