1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — Duty — Industrial Commission — Benefit Public — Breach — No Liability — Individual Plaintiff. When duty imposed on Industrial Commission is one imposed for the benefit of the public at large, then injuries sustained as result of the non-performance of these duties would be a breach of the duty owed to the public not the individual, so neither the Commission nor its individual members could be held liable in damages to an individual plaintiff for a breach of this duty.
Opinion by JUDGE COYTE.
Plaintiff in error filed suit against the Industrial Commission and its three commissioners in their individual capacity. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that while working in a manufacturing plant, he was injured by a defective die-setting machine, and suffered damages totaling $90,000. As grounds for relief against the defendants, the plaintiff alleged that they had breached their statutory duty to inspect industrial machinery, C.R.S. 1963, 80-2-1(1), and were therefore liable for all resulting injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted.
The issue on appeal is whether this complaint, taking the facts as true, would entitle plaintiff to recover from either the Commission itself, or the three individual commissioners.
[1] Neither the Commission nor the three commissioners are liable for non-performance of this statutory duty, for when the duty imposed by statute is one imposed for the benefit of the public at large, then injuries sustained as result of the non-performance of these duties would be a breach of the duty owed to the public, not to the individual. Consequently, neither the individual members of the Commission nor the Commission itself could be held liable in damages to an individual for failure to inspect. Richardson v. Belknap, 73 Colo. 52, 213 P. 335. In the case of Miller v. Ouray Electric Light Power Co., 18 Colo. App. 131, 70 P. 447, cited in Richardson, supra, the court held that, where the county commissioners had the duty to inspect and correct defects found in the county jail, this was a duty owed to the public in general, and not to the individual prisoners.
[2] In the present case, the statute C.R.S. 1963, 80-2-1(1), imposes the duty on the Industrial Commission to inspect all public places where there is machinery being used, for the stated purpose of protecting "employees or guests." For all practical purposes, this statute is all-inclusive and designed to protect the public at large, and not the individual plaintiff in this case. In fact, the term "employees or guests," would mean that anyone lawfully in the establishment covered by the statute is in the class to be protected. We consider such broad terminology to mean that the apparent intent of the legislature is to require inspection and correction of defective machinery for the purpose of safeguarding the public at large. As such, there is no liability to the individual plaintiff. Richardson, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE DWYER and JUDGE PIERCE concur.