 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzell v. Hartman Enterprises2/27/2003
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, ORDER VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Davidson and Webb, JJ., concur
Plaintiff, Kelly L. Grizzell (parent), individually and as parent and heir-at-law of the estate of Stephanie Hart (victim), appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing her complaint against defendant, Hartman Enterprises, Inc. (owner). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Owner operates a sandwich shop. In February 2000, victim was apparently invited into the shop by a young employee after the shop was closed for business. Later, the employee apparently opened the rear door of the shop and admitted an unknown individual. Sometime thereafter, both victim and the employee were shot and killed by the unknown individual.
Parent filed this action alleging that owner was liable for victim's death under the premises liability statute, § 13-21-115, C.R.S. 2002 (Premises Act), because victim was a business invitee and, in the words of the complaint, owner was under a legal duty to take reasonable measures to "protect its patrons and business invitees from the foreseeable consequences of criminal acts on the part of known or unknown persons and to employ reasonable security precautions, including the hiring of adult employees to operate and supervise the premises on school nights, including closing down the restaurant."
Parent also alleged that owner was liable under the Colorado Youth Employment Opportunity Act, § 8-12-101, et seq., C.R.S. 2002 (Youth Act), for "employing a child employee under the age of 16 to work more than six hours and after 9:30 p.m. when the next day was a school day."
Owner moved to dismiss the complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim for relief and the trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, owner moved for its costs and attorney fees, which the trial court granted in part. This appeal followed.
We review de novo an order dismissing an action under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), an order granting summary judgment under C.R.C.P. 56, and a determination classifying the victim under § 13-21-115(4), C.R.S. 2002, of the Premises Act. See Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Board, 901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995)(summary judgment); Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes, 907 P.2d 580 (Colo. 1995) (classification under Premises Act); Fluid Technology, Inc. v. CVJ Axles, Inc., 964 P.2d 614 (Colo. App. 1998)(C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5)).
I.
Parent first contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim under the Premises Act. We agree in part.
C.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) states that a complaint shall contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint need not express all facts that support the claim, but need only serve notice of the claim asserted. The chief function of a complaint is to give notice to the defendant of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the plaintiff's claims. Fluid Technology, Inc. v. CVJ Axles, Inc., supra. Thus, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) are "viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted under our `notice pleadings.'" Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 P.2d 1286, 1291 (Colo. 1992)(quoting Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 131, 503 P.2d 157, 162 (1972)).
A trial court may not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim. In addition, the allegations of the complaint must be vi
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|