Hogsett v. Hanna.
Citation | 41 N.M. 22,63 P.2d 540 |
Decision Date | 19 November 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 4126.,4126. |
Parties | HOGSETTv.HANNA. |
Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Joseph L. Dailey, Judge.
Action by Robert A. Hogsett, as administrator of the estate of Robert F. Hogsett, deceased, against Thomas W. Hanna. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Defendant's motion to strike complaint is in effect demurrer to evidence, and admits truth of testimony, and every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom.
Hanna & Wilson and Wm. A. Brophy, all of Albuquerque, for appellant.
John F. Simms and H. O. Waggoner, both of Albuquerque, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment for $15,000 rendered in favor of plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of Robert F. Hogsett, deceased, for the alleged negligence of the defendant and his servant resulting in the death of Dr. Hogsett.
Robert F. Hogsett, an able and well-educated physician, thirty years of age, who had a lucrative practice, died as the result of a fall from the floor of a garage through an unguarded floor door, down certain steps leading to the cellar containing a heating plant and used by a tenant of the garage as a storeroom. The defendant, appellant here, was the owner and landlord of said premises, including two offices occupied by unassociated parties. The garage was demised to William Keutter, a witness in this cause, by a written lease for the “garage located behind 217-219 West Gold Avenue, Albuquerque, New Mexico,” without further description of the premises. The cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. At the close of plaintiff's case the defendant moved the court to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied and the defendant stood upon his motion, and, after saving exceptions necessary for a review, defendant took this appeal. Several points are now pressed upon our notice as calling for a reversal of the judgment.
The court made findings of fact requested by plaintiff, as follows:
The court adopted the following conclusions requested by plaintiff.
At the request of defendant, the court made the following findings of fact:
And the court adopted the following conclusions of law at the request of defendant:
[1][2] The parties will be referred to as in the trial court. The defendant maintains that the trial court erred in ruling that an individual master was liable for the wrongful death caused by the tort of his servant, and cites the case of Don Yan v. Ah You, 4 Ariz. 109, 77 P. 618, and Texas cases. Neither the Arizona nor Texas statute is identical with the New Mexico act.
Our statute was originally passed as chapter 61 of the Laws of 1882 and was taken from the statutes of Missouri. Prior to the enactment of this statute by our Territorial Legislature, the case of Proctor v. Hannibal & St. J. Railway Company, 64 Mo. 112, had been decided by the court of last resort of that state. The court in that case said: “It manifestly appears from these provisions-for they apply to the injuries alluded to in section 3, as well as to those in section 2-that it must have been in mind and intention of the legislature only to confer upon the above classes of persons the right to sue in cases where the husband, wife of child could have sued, had not death been the result of the injury.”
The statute was again construed in Gray v. McDonald, 104 Mo. 303, 16 S.W. 398, 399, where it is stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stang v. Hertz Corp.
...from such death, to the surviving parties, who may be entitled. * * *' This 1882 statute was taken from Missouri. Hogsett v. Hanna, 41 N.M. 22, 63 P.2d 540 (1936). The inference in the Missouri cases discussed in Hogsett v. Hanna, supra, is that the wording of our 1882 law permitted, genera......
-
Mares v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Co.
...neglect or default.” These statutes have been construed in Cerrillos C. R. Co. v. Deserant, 9 N.M. 49, 49 P. 807; and Hogsett v. Hanna, 41 N.M. 22, 63 P.2d 540, 543, in which it was held “that from the proof as to age, earning capacity, health, habits and probable duration of life, the jury......
-
Folz v. State
...by them, also, to promote safety of life and limb by making negligence that causes death costly to the wrongdoer. Hogsett v. Hanna [41 N.M. 22, 63 P.2d 540 (1936)], supra; Trujillo v. Prince, 42 N.M. 337, 78 P.2d 145 (1938); Tauch v. Ferguson-Steere Motor Co., 62 N.M. 429, 312 P.2d 83 Stang......
-
Gray v. Armijo
...a presumption that it likewise adopts the construction of the statute by the courts of the state from which it was adopted. Hogsett v. Hanna, 41 N.M. 22, 63 P.2d 540; McDonald v. Lambert, supra; White v. Montoya, supra; Smith v. Meadows, This court, in Melfi v. Goodman, 69 N.M. 488, 368 P.2......