## Facts

- Sydney Ricketts, a Pennsylvania Railroad dining-car waiter, was injured on February 16, 1943, while working.
- Ricketts later signed a railroad-form release in exchange for $150; he testified the claim agent said it was only for lost wages and tips, and he signed without reading it.
- Ricketts remained unable to work normally and later sought additional money from the claim agent.
- Ricketts consulted attorney Reich, who communicated with the claim agent and then presented Ricketts a second railroad-form release.
- Ricketts testified Reich said the $600 payment was only for time off, wages, and tips, and that signing would avoid trouble with the company; Ricketts again did not read the document and signed.
- Ricketts’s wife corroborated that Reich characterized the payment as back pay and tips.
- Ricketts sued under FELA; the railroad defended on the ground that the signed releases barred the claim.
- A jury returned a verdict for Ricketts for $7,500; the railroad appealed only the releases’ validity.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find the releases were not a knowing, binding settlement of Ricketts’s FELA injury claim because they were signed in reliance on material misstatements about their scope.
2. Whether a release may be avoided where the employee did not read it and reasonably relied on representations by the railroad’s agent and/or the employee’s attorney that the payment was only for wages and tips.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ricketts.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the releases did not bar the FELA action.
- The court rejected the railroad’s claim that the releases were binding as a matter of law merely because Ricketts signed clear written documents.

## Legal Principles

- A signed release can be set aside when the trier of fact finds the signer was induced to execute it by fraud or material misrepresentation as to its nature or effect.
- In a FELA case, whether a release reflects an informed and voluntary settlement, as opposed to a misunderstanding induced by misstatements, is ordinarily a fact question for the jury on adequate evidence.
- Misstatements communicated through the employee’s own lawyer do not automatically validate a release where the evidence permits a finding that the employee relied on misinformation traceable to the railroad’s claim negotiations and did not understand he was surrendering an injury claim.

## Conclusion

The court left the jury’s verdict intact because testimony from Ricketts and his wife allowed a finding that Ricketts signed the releases without understanding they discharged his FELA injury claim, having been told the payments were only for lost wages and tips; therefore, the railroad could not use the releases to bar recovery.


Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 153 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1946)