Suit was brought by three minor children, by their next friend, to recover damages from the defendant company by reason of its negligence whereby Jim Price, the stepfather of the plaintiffs, was killed. It is alleged that plaintiffs are the only heirs of Price, he having left no widow and no other children, and that he mаrried their mother eight years prior to his death, and from the time of said marriage to the day of his dеath he maintained and supported' plaintiffs as his .children, rearing them in his own home, feeding, clothing аnd schooling them, and exercising over them complete parental control by consent of their mother and of themselves; and that such relation continued up to the date of his death, up to
The plaintiffs base their, action upon this provision of the Civil Code; “§3828. A widow, or, if no widow, a child or children, may recover for the homicide of the husband or parent; and if suit be brought by the widow or children, and the former or one of the latter dies pending the actiоn, the same shall survive in the first, case to the children, and in the latter- to the surviving child or children. The husband may recover for the homicide of his wife, and if she leaves child or children surviving, said husband and children shаll sue jointly, and not separately, with the right to recover the full value of the life of the decеased, as shown by the evidence, and with the right of survivorship as to said suit if either die pending the action. A mother, or, if no mother, a father, may recover for the homicide of a child minor or sui juris, upon whom she or he is dependent, or who contributes to his or her support, unless said child leave а wife, husband or child. Said mother or father shall be entitled to recover the full value of the life оf said child.” The clear meaning of these words, in the first sentence quoted, is that a widow may recоver for the homicide of her husband, and, if no widow, a child or children may recover for the homiсide of the father. It is contended in this case that the stepfather stands in loco parentis аs to his stepchildren, and that the latter may recover damages for the negligent homicide оf the former. Our attention has been called to no_ authority in which it has ever been decided that the word “parent,” either in the legal or ordinary acceptation of that term, includes а stepfather or stepmother. It is true that cases have arisen in which it has been held for some purposes that the stepfather may stand in loco parentis as to the children of his deceased wife. For instance, where he assumes the care and custody of his infant stepchildren, so long as he maintains them as members of his family under the parental roof, the
Thе right of action provided for in the above code section did not exist at common law. This statute is, therefore, in -derogation of the common law; and applying to it the universal rule of strict construction, we can not see how there is any escape from the conclusion that the legislature never contemplated giving a child any right of action for the homicide of a stepparent. ' Judgment affirmed.