Parrent v. Midway Toyota
Montana Supreme Court
626 P.2d 848 (1981)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Melvin Parrent (plaintiff) worked at Midway Toyota, Inc. (Midway) (defendant) while an underage teenager. In the fall of 1975, Melvin hurt his back while working at Midway. Midway paid Melvin temporary disability for two months. Within that time, however, Melvin learned that he had a herniated disk and went through surgery to repair it. Over a year later, but still while Melvin was a minor, Melvin and Midway reached a final settlement agreement regarding Melvin’s injury. Midway negotiated the settlement through Tom Mazurek, a claims adjuster. During the negotiations, Mazurek met with Melvin and Melvin’s mother, Hermione Parrent. Nevertheless, ultimately, Melvin signed the settlement agreement himself. Hermione was present when Melvin signed the agreement and did not object, but neither Hermione nor any other adult cosigned the agreement with Melvin. Later, Melvin petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Court to reopen Melvin’s claim against Midway. The Workers’ Compensation Court found that nothing about Melvin’s health had changed, and that Midway had done nothing wrong during the settlement. The court further found that Hermione’s participation in the negotiations and presence at the signing had the same effect as if Hermione had also signed the agreement. The court ruled in favor of Midway. Melvin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harrison, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
