Henderson v. Bear

968 P.2d 144 (1998)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Henderson v. Bear

Colorado Court of Appeals
968 P.2d 144 (1998)

Facts

The 15-year-old son of Mark and Toni Henderson (plaintiffs) was killed by electrocution while working at a car wash. Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Mark and Toni received reimbursement for their son’s medical expenses and $4,000 for funeral expenses. However, Mark and Toni were not awarded dependency benefits to which they believed they were entitled. Mark and Toni filed a claim for wrongful death and for extreme and outrageous conduct against their son’s employers, including William Bear, Susan Bear, and David Cordes, and the car wash (collectively, the employer) (defendants). Mark and Toni filed a private suit, alleging violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of the Colorado Youth Employment Opportunity Act (the Colorado youth act). The employer responded by filing a motion to dismiss combined with a motion for summary judgment. The employer argued that the remedies available under the federal Workers’ Compensation Act were the exclusive remedies available to Mark and Toni for their son’s death and that the acts under which they filed their suit did not permit private suits. A trial court agreed. The parties agreed to dismiss the claim for wrongful death. The court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss on the basis of failing to state a claim for which an award could be provided and assessed $4,000 in attorney’s fees against Mark and Toni’s attorney for filing a claim that lacked sufficient justification. Mark and Toni appealed and argued that the FLSA was violated because their son performed labor prohibited under the act. On appeal, Mark and Toni also argued that the trial court’s dismissal was in error because there was an implied right to bring a private suit under the FLSA and under the Colorado youth act that overrode the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions. Mark and Toni also appealed the assessment of attorney’s fees against their lawyer.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Marquez, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership