 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rojas v. Engineered Plastic Designs3/13/2003
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Casebolt and Metzger, JJ., concur
Plaintiffs, Faustino and Maria Rojas, as surviving parents of Miguel Rojas, and Ruben Garcia, Jr., appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Engineered Plastic Designs, Inc. (EPD). We affirm.
EPD maintained a room on its premises where it kept a keg of beer, a television, and a pool table. Officers and employees of EPD used the room for social gatherings after work.
After completing work for the day, an EPD employee came to this room and consumed beer with other employees and officers of EPD. The employee then left EPD's premises in his own vehicle. The employee's vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Miguel Rojas and in which Garcia was a passenger. Miguel Rojas died, and Garcia was injured in the accident. These facts are not disputed by the parties.
Plaintiffs asserted claims against EPD for wrongful death, negligent supervision, and outrageous conduct. Plaintiffs later moved to amend the complaint to add a negligence claim.
EPD moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe a legal duty to plaintiffs, and therefore, plaintiffs' negligence claims should be dismissed. EPD also argued that plaintiffs' outrageous conduct claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs' allegations cannot constitute outrageous conduct as a matter of law. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims.
The trial court did not rule on plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. However, the court considered plaintiffs' negligence claim in ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment and thus necessarily granted the motion to amend. Accordingly, we will address the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims including the negligence claim.
An order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should be granted only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, or admissions establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. C.R.C.P. 56(c); Hyden v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 20 P.3d 1222 (Colo. App. 2000). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cissell Manufacturing Co. v. Park, 36 P.3d 85 (Colo. App. 2001).
I.
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by dismissing their wrongful death, negligence, and negligent supervision claims because the facts could show that EPD negligently provided beer to its employee and negligently supervised the employee after he became intoxicated. EPD argues that these claims are barred by § 12-47-801, C.R.S. 2002. We agree with EPD.
Initially, we note that the trial court, relying on Biel v. Alcott, 876 P.2d 60 (Colo. App. 1993), granted EPD's summary judgment motion because it concluded that EPD had no duty to supervise its employee after he left EPD's premises. We do not reach this issue because we conclude that plaintiffs' claims are barred by § 12-47-801.
Section 12-47-801 provides, in pertinent part, that:
(1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this section shall be interpreted so that any common law cause of action against a vendor of alcohol beverages is abolished and that in certain cases the consumption of alcohol beverages rather than the sale, service, or provision thereof is the proximate cause of injuries or damages inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person except as otherwise provided in this section.
(3)(a) No licensee is civilly
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|