Grogan v. Denver & R. G. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1914 |
| Parties | GROGAN et al. v. DENVER & R. G. R. CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Hubert L Shattuck, Judge.
Action by Alice S. Grogan and others against the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Sterling B. Toney, R. Burge Toney, and Charles Clyde Barker, all of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
E. N Clark and J. G. McMurry, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is an action under section 2056, Revised Statutes 1908, by brothers and sisters to recover damages of a railroad company for the death of their brother, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the company while he was a passenger upon one of its trains. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint. This is the foundation of the errors assigned.
Assuming that the complaint alleges (which is in dispute) that the deceased left surviving him no widow, child, children, the descendants of children, or father, or mother, and that the plaintiffs were and are all the brothers and sisters that he ever had, are they entitled to maintain the action? It is conceded that no right to recover damages resulting from death was recognized at common law, and that he plaintiffs' right in this instance, if they have any must arise from this statute. In Hindry v. Holt, 24 Colo 464, 51 P. 1002, 39 L.R.A. 351, 65 Am.St.Rep. 235, it was held that the words 'heir or heirs' as used in the second subdivision of this section do not include all those entitled under certain conditions to share in the estate of a person dying intestate, but as therein used were intended to mean the child or children of the deceased. Whether this would carry with it the descendants of a child was not stated, and is not involved here. The reasons given for the construction placed upon the act are unquestionably sound; it is unnecessary to reiterate them.
The contention that the action in Hindry v. Holt supra, was brought under sections 2057 and 2058, Revised Statutes, and for that reason its conclusions and not applicable to this case, is not well taken. Section 2058 provides that all damages accruing under section 2057 shall be sued for and recovered by the same parties and in the same manner as provided in section 2056, supra. It follows that the parties who may bring the action are in each instance intended to be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ablin v. Richard O'Brien Plastering Co.
...our supreme court has twice considered the standing of siblings to sue under the Wrongful Death Act. In both Grogan v. Denver & Rio Grande R.R. Co., 56 Colo. 450, 138 P. 764 (1914); and Blom v. United Air Lines, 152 Colo. 486, 382 P.2d 993 (1963), the court held that siblings lack such stan......
-
Clint v. Stolworthy
...be entitled to sue are the same whether the case is brought under Section 41-1-1 or Sections 41-1-2 and 41-1-3. Grogan vs. Denver & R. G. R. R., 56 Colo. 450, 138 Pac. 764. And the subdivisions of 41-1-1 are intended to take rank and have effect in the order in which they occur. Hopper vs. ......
-
McGill v. General Motors Corp.
...subdivision.' (Emphasis added.) Accord, Blom v. United Air Lines, 152 Colo. 486, 382 P.2d 993 (1963); Grogan et al. v. Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, 56 Colo. 450, 138 P. 764 (1914). We add that to construe the words 'heir or heirs' to include the parents of a decedent would be to ignore t......
-
Blom v. United Air Lines, Inc.
...plaintiff from maintaining the action. * * *' This interpretation of the statute was again approved in Grogan et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, 56 Colo. 450, 138 P. 764, in which Hindry v. Holt, supra, is cited with approval as '* * * The reasons given for the construction pla......