Béné v. La Grande Laundry Co.

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in defendant’s favor pursuant to an order granting a non-suit in an action to recover damages for the alleged breach of an oral agreement which plaintiff claims was made on behalf of defendant to give her employment.

The essential facts shown by the evidence are as follows: On April 6, 1906, while working in respondent’s laundry in San Francisco, appellant’s right hand and arm were caught in a mangle, and crushed so badly that amputation of the arm was necessary. Upon recovering from the effects of the operation, and on July 24, 1906, she returned to the laundry, and according to her testimony was told by the superintendent and the president of the respondent company

[514]

that if she would not sue the company on account of the injuries she had received, she would “be given a job any time” and “for life if she wanted it”. At all events, she was put to work in the distributing room, folding clothes, and was paid $7 a week for her services, which was a dollar a week more than she was receiving uwhen injured. She continued in such employment until December, 1908, at which time she quit voluntarily to be married, stating that her intended husband was opposed to her working after their marriage. At the time she quit the superintendent told her, so she testified, that any time she wanted to come back they “would be glad to have her”. Twenty-four years later, that is, in December, 1932, her husband died, and about two months subsequent to his death she returned to the laundry and applied to the superintendent for a job, stating that owing to her impoverished financial condition she was much in need of work. He replied, so she testified, that he would see what could be done for her. Not hearing from him, she applied again, several times, personally and by phone, to the superintendent and also to the then president of the company, but on each occasion was told, according to her testimony, that if employment could be found for her she would be notified. Finally, in 1933, she commenced this action for damages. Her requests for reemployment were always based upon the plea that due to her stringent financial circumstances she was much in need of a job. At no time did she mention the matter of the alleged oral promise upon which her action is founded.

Among the points urged by respondent in support of the trial court’s ruling granting the nonsuit are: First, that appellant’s testimony relating to the making of the promise to give her life employment is so inherently improbable that it is legally insufficient to establish the existence of such a promise; second, that even assuming that the promise was made as claimed by her, it was not binding on the respondent corporation for want of legal authority on the part of the superintendent and the president to make such a promise; third, that said promise, if made, was invalid for want of consideration, it being contended in this regard that no cause of action for damages against respondent ever arose out of the accident (which happened prior to the enactment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act) because of the intervention