Our primary task in construing a statute is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. People v. District Court, 713 P.2d 918, 921 (Colo. 1986). In this case, it is necessary to determine whether the General Assembly intended to abrogate all common law rights of action not specifically set forth in the statute. To discern that intent, a court should look first to the plain language of the statute. Id. Words and phrases should be given effect according to their plain and ordinary meaning, and “we must choose a construction that serves the purpose of the legislative scheme, and must not strain to give language other than its plain meaning, unless the result is absurd.” Colorado Dep’t of Social Serv.’s v. Board of Comm’rs, 697 P.2d 1, 18 (Colo. 1985).

Our task is to determine the legislative intent, and to construe the statute as a whole to give effect to all of its parts. People v. Lee, 180 Colo. 376, 506 P.2d 136 (1973); Massey v. District Court, 180 Colo. 359, 506 P.2d 128 (1973).  Farmers Group Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991).

• When Does a Statute Create a Private Right of Action?
• What are some Principles of Statutory Construction?
• When is Common Law Deemed Repealed?
• Have You Seen This Revenue Ruling on Summary Record of Assessment FOIA Requests?
• What is “Abuse of Process”?
• When Does a Statute Abrogate Your Common-Law Rights?
• What are some Principles of Statutory Construction? II
• How Should Words Grouped in a List be Related?
• Who Says There is No Federal Common Law?