Hansen v. Barron's Oilfield Services, Inc
Citations
- 2018 COA 132
- 429 P.3d 101
Syllabus
Wife died in an automobile collision with Hierro, an employee of Barron's Oilfield Services, Inc. (Barron's). At the time of her death, Wife was married to Husband and had no children. A law firm filed a wrongful death action on Husband's behalf, naming Barron's and Hierro as defendants. However, apparently unbeknownst to the attorneys, Husband had died of natural causes before the complaint was filed. Upon learning of Husband's death, the law firm filed an amended complaint substituting Hansen, Wife's father (Parent), as the plaintiff. Barron's moved to dismiss under CRCP 12(b)(5) arguing that Parent lacked standing under the Colorado Wrongful Death Act (WDA). The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, Parent argued that the district court erred in dismissing his wrongful death action because it interpreted the WDA too strictly. He further argued that fairness and public policy dictate that he should be allowed to file a wrongful death action for the death of Wife under the circumstances here. Parents of an adult deceased have the right to bring a wrongful death action only if the decedent is unmarried and without descendants. Under CRS § 13-21-201(1)(c)(I), the relevant time for determining if an adult deceased is \unmarried\ is the decedent's date of death. Here, it was undisputed that when Wife died, she was married to Husband, and Husband survived her. The Court of Appeals also granted Barron's request for attorney fees. The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded with directions for a determination of the appropriate amount of attorney fees incurred on appeal.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that if Rehaif were in effect at the defendant’s trial, he “would have stipulated to both the felon-status element and the knowledge-of-felon- status element to keep the jury ignorant of the inculpatory details otherwise required to prove knowledge of felon status”
- explaining that “[s]ufficiency is measured against the actual elements of the offense” (emphasis in original)
- holding a defendant must at least “make[] a general sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge” at trial to obtain de novo sufficiency review on appeal (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)
- noting that “[a] sentence is imposed when it is pronounced by the district court and not, as [the defendants] would have it, when the appellate process comes to an end”
- noting that “[a] sentence is imposed when it is pronounced by the district court and not, as [the defendants] would have it, when the appellate process comes to an end”
- reasoning that, “absent any evidence suggesting ignorance, a jury applying the beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard could infer that a defendant knew that he or she was a convicted felon from the mere existence of a felony conviction” as evidenced by the defendant’s stipulation
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.