Cox v. Pearl Investment Company

Supreme Court of Colorado · 1969 · Torts

450 P.2d 60 (1969)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceReleaseCovenant Not to SueJoint TortfeasorsSummary Judgmentjoint tortfeasorreservation of rights

Facts

Mrs. Cox allegedly suffered injuries when she fell on property owned by Pearl Investment Company, and plaintiffs sued Pearl for negligence. Goodwill Industries was Pearl's tenant, and before this suit proceeded, Goodwill paid plaintiffs $2500 in exchange for a document titled "Covenant Not to Proceed with Suit." That instrument expressly reserved plaintiffs' right to sue any other person who might be liable for the accident. In the summary judgment proceedings, plaintiffs' failure to answer requests for admissions resulted in deemed admissions that they had made claims against both Goodwill and Pearl and had accepted the payment from Goodwill.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs' agreement with Goodwill Industries barred their negligence action against Pearl as a joint tortfeasor. Also, whether the joint tortfeasor relationship was sufficiently established on summary judgment and whether the unpleaded release defense could be considered.

Rule

Colorado continues to recognize the rule that the release of one joint tortfeasor releases all. But where an instrument releasing one tortfeasor expressly reserves the right to sue others, the instrument should be construed according to the parties' manifest intent as a covenant not to sue rather than an absolute release of all joint tortfeasors. In addition, unanswered requests for admissions are deemed admitted and may supply the factual basis for summary judgment analysis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Lena Ortiz was injured when a loose metal gate fell on her outside a building owned by Desert Lantern Properties and maintained by its tenant, Mesa Grove Market. Lena accepted $8,000 from Mesa Grove and signed a document labeled "Full Release," but the text also stated that she "expressly reserves all claims against any other person or entity responsible for the occurrence."

If Lena later sues Desert Lantern Properties for negligence and Desert Lantern argues that the settlement with Mesa Grove released all joint tortfeasors, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Colorado still recognizes the rule that a true release of one joint tortfeasor releases all, but an instrument that expressly reserves the right to sue others must be construed according to the parties' manifest intent. Such a document is treated as a covenant not to sue, not an absolute release of nonsettling tortfeasors.