Image via Wikipedia
Although section 2 4 211, 1B C.R.S. (1980), expressly grants the General Assembly the right to abrogate common law remedies, “we will not lightly infer a legislative abrogation of that right absent a clear expression of intent.” Kristensen v. Jones, 195 Colo. 122, 124, 575 P.2d 854, 855 (1978) (emphasis added); see also Robinson v. Kerr, 144 Colo. 48, 52, 355 P.2d 117, 119 20 (1960) (a statute modifies the common law “only to the extent embraced in the statute, which may not be enlarged by construction, nor its application extended beyond its specific terms. Statutes are not presumed to alter the common law otherwise than the act expressly provides.”) (citations omitted); Collard v. Hohnstein, 64 Colo. 478, 479, 174 P. 596 (1918) (“To deprive plaintiff of his common law right of action it is essential that it affirmatively appear that the statutes themselves, either directly or by necessary implication, abrogate such a right.” (emphasis added)); Schuler v. Henry, 42 Colo. 367, 378, 94 P. 360, 363 (1908) (Maxwell, J., dissenting) (“the common law will not be held to be abrogated unless the language used in the statute requires it.”); see also Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., Ltd., 394 U.S. 404, 412, 89 S. Ct. 1144, 22 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969) (“the legislative grant of a new right does not ordinarily cut off or preclude other nonstatutory rights in the absence of clear language to that effect.”).?? Farmers Group Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991).
Since the legislative record is silent, we conclude that the General Assembly did not intend to abrogate those remedies.� Farmers Group Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991).
Farmers also claims that if the General Assembly had not intended to abrogate common law remedies, it would have specifically indicated that treble damages were not the exclusive remedy. As we have said, however, we do not look to whether the legislature specifically authorizes the continuance of preexisting common law remedies when it enacts a statute dealing with the same issue, but rather to whether, “in express terms or by clear implication, [the statute] repeals or suspends the common law right of action.” Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. Henderson, 10 Colo. at 2, 13 P. at 911. We fail to find that clear implication here.� Farmers Group Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991).![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tEwIp3-GH2JrVYlcPNLblyJHlG-YpN6sbP9LJRZxTJEaD-MT00aINN1r-cRa4_00NzzH2VQhpg_p6ukcBTTd0dpi0SHv-epwqBbMMPPc8TLIUakAhDDbOC5bvlIJGgyWHEpfBz39uR1Q0nM5KR7L31=s0-d)
