Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.7 (2026)

Assumption of risk - consideration by trier of fact

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Assumption of a risk by a person shall be considered by the trier of fact in apportioning negligence pursuant to section 13-21-111. For the purposes of this section, a person assumes the risk of injury or damage if he voluntarily or unreasonably exposes himself to injury or damage with knowledge or appreciation of the danger and risk involved. In any trial to a jury in which the defense of assumption of risk is an issue for determination by the jury, the court shall instruct the jury on the elements as described in this section.

Source: L. 86: Entire section added, p. 679, § 3, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Harris v. the Ark, 810 P.2d 226 (Colo. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harris v. the Ark, 810 P.2d 226 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 36× “The question in this case is whether section 13-21-111.7, 6A C.R.S. (1987), which defines assumption of risk as the voluntary or unreasonable exposure to injury or damage with knowledge or appreciation of the danger or risk and which requires the trier of fact to consider, a…”
Del Bosco v. United States Ski Ass'n, 839 F. Supp. 1470 (D. Colo. 1993). · cites it 9× “; and (3) the Colorado assumption of risk statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-111.7. Plaintiffs have responded by opposing the motion.”
Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See § 13-21-111.7, C.R.S. 2002 (assumption of risk considered in apportioning negligence pursuant to comparative negligence statute); Harris v.”
rg v. Excel Elec., Inc, 2020 COA 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” § 13-21-111.7, C.R.S. 2019; see Carter v.”
Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Colo. 1998). · cites it 4× “This argument is premised on the release which I found invalid.”
In re P.W. v. Child.'s Hosp. Colorado, 2016 CO 6 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “" Because the question of a plaintiff's assumption of risk is folded within the comparative negligence analysis, in this opinion we will omit references to assumption of risk and simply use the terms contributory negligence, comparative negligence, or comparative fault, See §…”
Bath Excavating & Constr. Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 2× “See § 13-21-111.7, 6A C.R.S. (1987); Harris v.”
Carter v. Lovelace, 844 P.2d 1288 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “Section 13-21-111.7, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol.”
Vititoe v. Rocky Mountain Pavement Maint., Inc., 412 P.3d 767 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “" § 13-21-111.7, C.R.S.2014. "[A]n instruction on assumption of risk, as a form of negligence, may be given with a comparative negligence instruction if .”
Scott v. City of Greeley, 931 P.2d 525 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 13-21-111.7, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Perez v. McConkey, 872 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1994). “2d 105 (1977) (codified at Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-21-111.7 (West 1988 & Supp.”
Hendrickson v. Doyle, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.7 . Notably, however, the Act declares that “the risk of a [skier-on-skier] collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.