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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-402 (2026)

Innocent seller

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

(1) No product liability action shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability action. Nothing in this part 4 shall be construed to limit any other action from being brought against any seller of a product.

(2) If jurisdiction cannot be obtained over a particular manufacturer of a product or a part of a product alleged to be defective, then that manufacturer's principal distributor or seller over whom jurisdiction can be obtained shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, the manufacturer of the product. Source: L. 77: Entire part added, p. 820, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 1289, § 1, effective September 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Stone's Farm Supply, Inc. v. Deacon, 805 P.2d 1109 (Colo. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stone's Farm Supply, Inc. v. Deacon, 805 P.2d 1109 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 26× “(Stone), but reversed the judgment against American Plant Food Corporation (American) predicated on lack of jurisdiction under section 13-21-402, 6A C.R.S. (1987). The court of appeals concluded that American was not strictly liable for damages for the sale of a contaminated…”
Bond v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 868 P.2d 1114 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 11× “They assert that although the Hospitals are not the actual manufacturers of the Implant, they are strictly liable under § 13-21-402, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). Section 13-21 — 402(1), C.”
Wallman v. Kelley, 976 P.2d 330 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “Here, in the briefs accompanying their motions, defendants argued that plaintiffs claims should be construed as claims for strict liability in tort and that, as such, they were completely barred by § 13-21-402, C.R.S.1997, since defendants did not also manufacture the JBH.”
Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 251 P.3d 1179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “*1181 Brighton Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carter's claims were product liability claims and therefore barred by the "innocent seller" statute, section 13-21-402, C.R.S.2010. 1 The trial court agreed and dismissed Carter's remaining claims.”
Johnston v. Amsted Indus., Inc., 830 P.2d 1141 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Bauer v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 788 F. Supp. 472 (D. Colo. 1992). · cites it 4× “Marker also argues that it cannot be liable under strict products liability under C.R.S. § 13-21-402. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 provides that summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits show that there is no…”
Halter v. Waco Scaffolding & Equip. Co., 797 P.2d 790 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Heinrich v. Master Craft Eng'g, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 13-21-401 ; § 13-21-402. Sellers acting as apparent manufacturers are not among the listed circumstances.”
Miller v. Solaglas California, Inc., 870 P.2d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Deacon v. Am. Plant Food Corp., 782 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Watson v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Colo. 2011). · cites it 2× “Under this statute, no product defect liability action may be “commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product____” C.R.S. § 13-21-402(1). A “manufacturer” is defined as: .”
Am. Saf. Equip. Corp. v. Winkler, 640 P.2d 216 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 3× “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S.1973 (1980 Supp.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-402(1) — 20 cases
Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 251 P.3d 1179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “*1181 Brighton Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carter's claims were product liability claims and therefore barred by the "innocent seller" statute, section 13-21-402, C.R.S.2010. 1 The trial court agreed and dismissed Carter's remaining claims.”
Johnston v. Amsted Indus., Inc., 830 P.2d 1141 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Miller v. Solaglas California, Inc., 870 P.2d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Stone's Farm Supply, Inc. v. Deacon, 805 P.2d 1109 (Colo. 1991). “(Stone), but reversed the judgment against American Plant Food Corporation (American) predicated on lack of jurisdiction under section 13-21-402, 6A C.R.S. (1987). The court of appeals concluded that American was not strictly liable for damages for the sale of a contaminated…”
Watson v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Colo. 2011). “Under this statute, no product defect liability action may be “commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product____” C.R.S. § 13-21-402(1). A “manufacturer” is defined as: .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-402(2) — 8 cases
Bond v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 868 P.2d 1114 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “They assert that although the Hospitals are not the actual manufacturers of the Implant, they are strictly liable under § 13-21-402, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). Section 13-21 — 402(1), C.”
Johnston v. Amsted Indus., Inc., 830 P.2d 1141 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Halter v. Waco Scaffolding & Equip. Co., 797 P.2d 790 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Deacon v. Am. Plant Food Corp., 782 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). “Section 13-21-402(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Perez v. Fagor Am., Inc. (D. Colo. 2021).
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.