Morris v. Diers, 17732
| Citation | 134 Colo. 39,298 P.2d 957 |
| Decision Date | 02 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17732,17732 |
| Parties | Luther D. MORRIS and Iva Morris, Plaintiffs in Error. v. Henry A. DIERS and Don R. Diers, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Thomas E. Creighton, Flagler, for plaintiff in error.
Wormwood, O'Dell & Wolvington, Denver, for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, complain of the action of the district court of Lincoln county in dismissing their complaint. We refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court or by name.
The case grows out of an automobile accident involving two moving cars, one of which struck the second, which in turn struck and damaged a third car occupied by plaintiff Iva Morris while parked at a filling station at Arriba, Colorado, near a travelled highway. The plaintiffs, owner and injured occupant of the parked car, sued the owners and drivers of the other two cars 'jointly and severally,' alleging substantial damages to plaintiff Iva Morris and to the Morris car due to negligence on the part of the defendants. After the defendants Diers had filed their answer and before trial, plaintiffs dismissed the case as against defendants Shulls, the owner and driver of one of the cars, pursuant to a written stipulation. Defendants Diers, owner and driver of the other car, thereupon moved to dismiss as to them on the ground that the stipulation was of such nature that it released plaintiffs' cause of action as against all the defendants. The motion was granted; the court's order for dismissal contains no findings of facts.
The pertinent parts of the stipulation for dismissal of the action are:
'It is hereby stipulated by and between * * * plaintiffs (Morris and their attorney) and * * * (Shulls and their attorney) that, in consideration of the payment to said plaintiffs by said defendants of the sum of $500.00 cash and delivery to plaintiffs of a promissory note made by said defendants, in the amount of $250.00, and payable upon final determination of this cause, that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice as against said undersigned defendants only.'
Then follows a paragraph containing conditions on which the promissory note would be cancelled, which are not here material. The stipulation is signed by the plaintiffs Morris and their attorney and by the Shulls and their attorney and was filed February 3, 1955.
Thereafter defendants Diers filed an amendment to their answer, alleging a fourth defense:
'That said release and discharge and dismissal was a release of joint tort feasor and by reason thereof the defendants (the Diers) * * * as a matter of law, have been released and discharged of all claims of the plaintiffs.'
On hearing the motion to dismiss, the trial court entered judgment ordering the dismissal of plaintiffs' claim against the Diers, the remaining defendants, with prejudice.
The questions presented are:
1. Did the stipulation, that the action 'be dismissed with prejudice as against said undersigned defendants only,' (the Shulls) for a consideration, constitute a release of the remaining defendants?
2. Is the release of joint tort-feasors modified where the stipulation discloses that plaintiffs did intend to release the remaining joint tort-feasors?
Colorado has long recognized the majority rule in force in most other jurisdictions that the release of one joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neves v. Potter
...E.g., Cox v. Pearl Inv. Co., 168 Colo. 67, 450 P.2d 60 (1969); Price v. Baker, 143 Colo. 264, 352 P.2d 90 (1959); Morris v. Diers, 134 Colo. 39, 298 P.2d 957 (1956). The traditional rationale given for this rule was that where two or more tortfeasors acted in concert to cause an injury, the......
-
Price v. Baker
...This state has long followed the universal rule that the release of one joint tort-feasor is a release of all. Morris v. Diers, 1956, 134 Colo. 39, 298 P.2d 957; also see Rust v. Schlaitzer, 1933, 175 Wash. 331, 27 P.2d 571; 20 A.L.R.2d 1044. And the intention of the parties has no bearing ......
-
Cingoranelli v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
...tortfeasor served to release all other joint tortfeasors. E.g., Price v. Baker, 143 Colo. 264, 352 P.2d 90 (1959); Morris v. Diers, 134 Colo. 39, 298 P.2d 957 (1956); Denver and R.G.R. Co. v. Sullivan, 21 Colo. 302, 41 P. 501 (1895). This rule stemmed from the common law notion as to the un......
-
Cox v. Pearl Inv. Co.
...on our body of law the harshness and rigidity of the rule and rationale of Price, or any predecessor cases, including Morris v. Diers, 134 Colo. 39, 298 P.2d 957, which seemingly at least appears to support the result attained in Price. In our present analysis of this issue, we are drawn to......
-
Colorado's Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
...be referred to as "co-tortfeasors." See Prosser, "Joint Torts and Several Liability," 25 Cal. L. Rev. 413. See also Morris v. Diers, 134 Colo. 39, 298 P.2d 957 (1956); Price v. Baker, 143 Colo. 264, 352 P.2d 90 (1959); Alden v. Watson, 106 Colo. 103, 102 P.2d 479 (1940); and Bradford v. Ben......