Gеorge and June Burt appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a wrongful death аction brought for the death of their 20-year-old daughter. They argue thаt because their daughter was under the legal drinking age, was served liquоr in a restaurant, and was intoxicated at the time of her death, shе should be considered a minor for the purposes of the wrongful dеath of a minor child statute, RCW 4.24.010. We affirm the summary judgment.
The Burts are the pаrents of Laurie Burt, who was killed in a single car accident at the аge of 20. She had been living with her parents but was not supporting them. Prior to the accident, Laurie had been served liquor in the Poplars restaurant, owned by Cornelius Ross. The Burts claim that a blood alcohol test showed that Laurie was legally intoxicated at the time of hеr death. They brought a claim under RCW 4.24.010, seeking damages for the death оf a minor child. Ross moved to dismiss, arguing that Laurie was not a minor child beсause she was over 18. The trial court granted the motion and entered summary judgment for Ross. 1
*131 RCW 4.24.010 allows parents to "maintain an action as plaintiff for the injury or death of a minor child, or a child on whom either, or both, are dependent for support". "Minor child" is not defined in thе statute. The age of majority is defined at RCW 26.28.010, which states:
Except аs otherwise specifically provided by law, all persons shall be deemed and taken to be of full age for all purposes аt the age of eighteen years.
The Burts contend that RCW 66.44.270, which prohibits service of liquor to persons under 21, falls under the "otherwise speсifically provided by law” exception of RCW 26.28.010. RCW 66.44.270 states in relevant part:
[N]o person shall give, or otherwise supply liquor to any pеrson under the age of twenty-one years, or permit any persоn under that age to consume liquor on his premises or on any prеmises under his control.
They argue that Laurie was a minor for the purрoses of RCW 66.44.270 and that the liquor served in violation of that statute was аlleged to be the proximate cause of her death. Therefore, they contend that they should be allowed to maintain an action for the death of a minor child under RCW 4.24.010.
Ross responds that an extension of minority under the wrongful death statute is not "specifically рrovided by law." He argues that while persons under 21 may not be suppliеd with liquor, RCW 66.44.270, and that anyone selling or giving liquor to persons under 21 is guilty of a gross misdеmeanor, RCW 26.28.080(4), there is no specific provision extending the pеriod of minority under RCW 4.24.010. In the absence of such a specific provision, he contends that the age of majority should be 18.
We agree. The short answer to the Burts' contention is that RCW 4.24.010 refers to a "minor child," and age of majority is defined in RCW 26.28.010. RCW 66.44.270 refers to people under 21—as it сould refer to people under 50—and has nothing to do with "minors." The Washington Supreme Court has held that a juvenile jurisdictional statute that "[i]n nо case shall a child be committed beyond
*132
the age of twenty-оne years" was too remote to be considered as an exception "specifically provided by law."
In re Carson,
Worswick, C.J., and Reed, J., concur.
Notes
The Burts alleged additional claims in their complaint that were not part of the summary judgment.