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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-202 (2026)

Action notwithstanding death

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

When the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default of another, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who or the corporation which would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable in an action for damages notwithstanding the death of the party injured.

Source: G.L. § 878. G.S. § 1031. R.S. 08: § 2057. C.L. § 6303. CSA: C. 50, § 2. CRS 53: § 41-1-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 41-1-2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Espinoza v. O'DELL, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Espinoza v. O'DELL, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 18× “We distinguish two possible state statutes which bear upon this question: (1) a claim for wrongful death, arising under section 13-21-202, C.R.S. 1973, brought by surviving parties whose claim is based upon a fatal injury done to the deceased; [6] and (2) a survival action…”
BG's, Inc. v. Gross Ex Rel. Gross, 23 P.3d 691 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 14× “5 is entitled, "Alternative means of establishing damages — solatium amount," and provides: In any case arising under section 13-21-202, the persons entitled to sue under the provisions of section 13-21-201(1) may elect in writing to sue for and recover a solatium in the amount…”
Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. v. Keefe, 900 P.2d 97 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 14× “On April 18, 1991, respondents brought a wrongful death action against Pizza Hut, Orson Thomas and Ronald Pulda in the District Court for the City and County of Denver under section 13-21-202, 6A C.R.S. (1987). [2] In their complaint respondents alleged that Pizza Hut coerced…”
Est. of Martinez v. Taylor, 176 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 6× “At the same time, the parties also stipulated to the dismissal of three of plaintiffs’ claims as against Deputies Gomez, Cook, and Lucero: (1) *1225 Claim Five (negligence); (2) Claim Seven (wrongful death pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-202); and (3) Claim Eight (survival).”
Dewey v. Hardy, 917 P.2d 305 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “Plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants under § 13-21-202, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), seeking damages for the wrongful death of his daughter.”
Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. 1988). · cites it 6× “Code § 377 (West 1973); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-202 (1973); Fla. Stat.”
Duke v. Gunnison Cnty., 2019 COA 170 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “if death had not ensued,” § 13-21-202, C.R.S. 2019. Relying on Sigman v.”
Rowell v. Clifford, 976 P.2d 363 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “Defendants asserted that, under the Wrongful Death Act, §13-21-202, C.R.S.1998, a decedent must have a viable claim at his or her death before a survivor can bring an independent wrongful death claim.”
Steedle v. Sereff, 167 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 6× “§ 183-21-201(2); 5 see also § 18-21-208(1)(a) (stating that damages accruing under section 13-21-202 "shall be sued for and recovered by the same parties and in the same manner as provided in section 183-21-201").”
Gonzales v. Mascarenas, 190 P.3d 826 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “The Wrongful Death Statute The questions presented on appeal are (1) whether a wrongful death action may be maintained for the death of a nonviable fetus born alive; and, if so, (2) whether it can be maintained where the child, though born alive, is not viable at birth.”
Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 4× “1987), dismissing her claim which sought recovery under section 13-21-202, 6 C.R.S.1973 (Wrongful Death Act), 1 for the death of her son Timothy Lyons.”
Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 13-21-202, C.R.S. (2007) (emphasis added).”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-202(1973) — 1 case
Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. 1988). “Code § 377 (West 1973); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-202 (1973); Fla. Stat.”
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.