Barker v. City and County of Denver, 15489.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | 15489. |
| Citation | 160 P.2d 363,113 Colo. 543 |
| Parties | BARKER et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George A Luxford, Judge.
Action by Gertrude O. Barker and another against the City and County of Denver, for damages from the alleged negligent delay of a fire company in getting water onto a fire on plaintiffs' premises. To review a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Barker & Webster and Davis L. Barker, all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Malcolm Lindsey and Frank L. Hays, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
An action by plaintiffs in error against defendant in error and an individual, for damages. There was voluntary dismissal as to the individual defendant, and the general demurrer of defendant in error (under the Code) to the complaint was sustained. Plaintiffs in error elected to stand on their complaint, and suffered judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiffs in error alleged that they were the owners of a certain dwelling in Denver in which a fire occurred, resulting in a loss of more than $3,000; that within five minutes from the time the fire originated an alarm was telephoned to the Denver fire department, to which a fire company promptly responded; that notwithstanding there was a fire hydrant within about 200 feet of the scene of the fire, the fire company, in charge of the individual who was originally joined as a defendant, as captain, did not attach hose to that hydrant, but did attach it to a hydrant some eleven or twelve hundred feet from the point of the fire, whence the hose that was carried was not of sufficient length to reach the place of the conflagration; that to the delay consequent the loss, as alleged, was ascribable, hence actionable negligence attended, in relation to which defendant in error acting within its administrative capacity, as said, was liable.
That the members of the fire company connected hose with a hydrant at such distance from the scene of the fire when the supply of hose which it carried was not ample in length to serve effectively, rather than with a hydrant only a short distance from the fire, and well within the length of the hose, is not understandable. Whatever of mystery in that regard there may be, primarily, at least is properly referable to city authorities of higher rank than those constituting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City and County of Denver v. Madison
...County of Denver, 98 Colo. 403, 55 P.2d 1337, 103 A.L.R. 1509; Schwalb v. Counely, 116 Colo. 195, 179 P.2d 667; Barker v. City and County of Denver, 113 Colo. 543, 160 P.2d 363; Atkinson v. City and County of Denver, 118 Colo. 322, 195 P.2d 977; City and County of Denver v. Austria, 136 Col......
-
Ford v. City of Caldwell
...a governmental function in the maintenance of its fire department. Stang v. City of Mill Valley, supra; Barker v. City and County of Denver, 113 Colo. 543, 160 P.2d 363; Banks v. City of Albany, supra; Department of Treasury v. City of Evansville, 223 Ind. 435, 60 N.E.2d 952, 955; Rhodes v.......
-
Penny v. Anderegg, 15486.
... ... Error ... to District Court, Mesa County; George W. Bruce, Judge ... Action ... by Ruth ... N ... True and E. V. Holland, both of Denver, for plaintiff in ... Helman ... & Younge, of ... ...