Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403 (2026)

Presumptions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any product liability action, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the product which caused the injury, death, or property damage was not defective and that the manufacturer or seller thereof was not negligent if the product: (a) Prior to sale by the manufacturer, conformed to the state of the art, as distinguished from industry standards, applicable to such product in existence at the time of sale; or (b) Complied with, at the time of sale by the manufacturer, any applicable code, standard, or regulation adopted or promulgated by the United States or by this state, or by any agency of the United States or of this state. (2) In like manner, noncompliance with a government code, standard, or regulation existing and in effect at the time of sale of the product by the manufacturer which contributed to the claim or injury shall create a rebuttable presumption that the product was defective or negligently manufactured. (3) Ten years after a product is first sold for use or consumption, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the product was not defective and that the manufacturer or seller thereof was not negligent and that all warnings and instructions were proper and adequate. (4) In a product liability action in which the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the necessary facts giving rise to a presumption have been established, the court shall instruct the jury concerning the presumption.

Source: L. 77: Entire part added, p. 820, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2003: (4) added, p. 1289, § 3, effective September 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198 (Colo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 108× “In our view, later courts have erred to the extent that they have used Belle Bonfils to suggest that the presumptions of section 13-21-403 are evidence. See, e.g.”

Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 24× “Although the selective transcript of the pretrial proceedings provided on appeal does not indicate the trial court's reasons for admitting the evidence, the record does reveal that Huntington relied upon section 13-21-403(3), 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.”

Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “We note that section 13-21-403, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”

Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “Because Holtz’ cause of action against RCA accrued before the effective date of § 13-21-403, we conclude that the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to that statute.”

Squires ex rel. Squires v. Goodwin, 829 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (D. Colo. 2011). · cites it 4× “Squires cannot present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of product liability, particularly given the statutory presumption *1057 established by C.R.S. § 13-21-403 and Plaintiffs misplaced reliance upon Mr.”

Belle Bonfils Mem'l Blood Bank v. Hansen, 665 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 5× “Although section 13-21-403(l)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Supp.”

Hawkinson v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Colo. 1984). · cites it 4× “The relevant sections, C.R.S. § 13-21-403 and C.R.S. § 13-21-404, provide in pertinent part: 13-21-403 Presumptions.”

United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2009). “Colo. Rev.Stat. § 13-21-403(2). 6 . Pilatus also argues Edwards improperly gave an opinion regarding compliance with the regulation.”

Fraley v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 570 F. Supp. 497 (D. Colo. 1983). · cites it 5× “Kentucky and Kansas have similar provisions.”

Downing Ex Rel. Downing v. Overhead Door Corp., 707 P.2d 1027 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in instructing the jury, pursuant to § 13-21-403(3), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) that: “[t]en years after a product is first sold for use or consumption, it shall be rebutt-ably presumed that the product was…”

States v. RD Werner Co., Inc., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Under § 13-21-403(l)(b), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”

Welch v. F.R. Stokes, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 1054 (D. Colo. 1983). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff also asserts that because none of the presumptions of § 13-21-403 C.R.S.1973 apply, they cannot be invoked by defendant.”

Show all 34 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(1) — 3 cases

Union Ins. Co. v. RCA Corp., 724 P.2d 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “Because Holtz’ cause of action against RCA accrued before the effective date of § 13-21-403, we conclude that the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to that statute.”

Roberts v. May, 583 P.2d 305 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).

McHargue v. Stokes Div. of Pennwalt, 686 F. Supp. 1428 (D. Colo. 1988).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(1)(a) — 2 cases

Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198 (Colo. 1992). “In our view, later courts have erred to the extent that they have used Belle Bonfils to suggest that the presumptions of section 13-21-403 are evidence. See, e.g.”

Hawkinson v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Colo. 1984). “The relevant sections, C.R.S. § 13-21-403 and C.R.S. § 13-21-404, provide in pertinent part: 13-21-403 Presumptions.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(2) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(3) — 15 cases

Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1986). “Although the selective transcript of the pretrial proceedings provided on appeal does not indicate the trial court's reasons for admitting the evidence, the record does reveal that Huntington relied upon section 13-21-403(3), 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.”

Squires ex rel. Squires v. Goodwin, 829 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (D. Colo. 2011). “Squires cannot present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of product liability, particularly given the statutory presumption *1057 established by C.R.S. § 13-21-403 and Plaintiffs misplaced reliance upon Mr.”

Fraley v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 570 F. Supp. 497 (D. Colo. 1983). “Kentucky and Kansas have similar provisions.”

Downing Ex Rel. Downing v. Overhead Door Corp., 707 P.2d 1027 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in instructing the jury, pursuant to § 13-21-403(3), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) that: “[t]en years after a product is first sold for use or consumption, it shall be rebutt-ably presumed that the product was…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(l)(a) — 3 cases

Belle Bonfils Mem'l Blood Bank v. Hansen, 665 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1983). “Although section 13-21-403(l)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Supp.”

In re Masonite Corp. Hardboard Siding Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F.R.D. 417 (E.D. La. 1997).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-403(l)(b) — 4 cases

States v. RD Werner Co., Inc., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Under § 13-21-403(l)(b), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”

Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 685 P.2d 218 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Salazar v. Whink Prods. Co., 881 P.2d 431 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Hickman v. Thomas C. Thompson Co., 644 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Colo. 1986).

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.