 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzell v. Hartman Enterprises2/27/2003
et out specifically the nature or existence of [the claim] to enable the complaint to withstand motion for dismissal").
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Premises Act.
II.
Parent also contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim under the Youth Act. We disagree.
Parent alleged that owner was negligent per se for violating the Youth Act by employing the employee to work more than six hours and past 9:30 p.m. on a weeknight. We conclude that no private tort remedy is available to parent under the Youth Act.
Whether a private tort remedy is available against a non-governmental defendant for violating a statutory duty depends on three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is within the class of persons intended to be benefited by the legislative enactment; (2) whether the legislature intended to create a private right of action; and (3) whether an implied civil remedy would be consistent with the purposes of the legislative scheme. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1992).
In Henderson v. Bear, 968 P.2d 144 (Colo. App. 1998), a division of this court held that parents do not have a private cause of action under the Youth Act against their child's employer for the wrongful death of their child. The division found that the purpose of the Youth Act, as set forth in the legislative declaration, was to foster the economic, social, and educational development of young people through employment. The stated purpose indicates that the statute is to benefit children, not their parents.
Thus, it follows that a parent whose child was injured indirectly by an employer's violation of the Youth Act as to another child also would not have a private cause of action under the Youth Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing parent's complaint for failure to state a claim under the Youth Act.
The judgment is affirmed as to the claim under the Youth Act; the judgment is reversed in all other respects; and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed here. Having so concluded, the order awarding attorney fees pursuant to § 13-17-201, C.R.S. 2002, and costs pursuant to § 13-16-105, C.R.S. 2002, must likewise be, and it is hereby, vacated.
JUDGE DAVIDSON and JUDGE WEBB concur.
|