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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-406 (2026)

Comparative fault as measure of damages

✓ 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, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who are parties to the action for causing the harm, shall be compared by the trier of fact in accordance with this section. The fault of the person suffering the harm shall not bar such person, or a party bringing an action on behalf of such a person, or his estate, or his heirs from recovering damages, but the award of damages to such person or the party bringing the action shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of causal fault attributed to the person suffering the harm. If any party is claiming damages for a decedent's wrongful death, the fault of the decedent, if any, shall be imputed to such party. (2) Where comparative fault in any such action is an issue, the jury shall return special verdicts, or, in the absence of a jury, the court shall make special findings determining the percentage of fault attributable to each of the persons to whom some fault is attributed and determining the total amount of damages sustained by each of the claimants. The entry of judgment shall be made by the court, and no general verdict shall be returned by the jury. (3) Repealed. (4) The provisions of section 13-21-111 do not apply to any product liability action.

Source: L. 81: Entire section added, p. 885, § 1, effective July 1; (3) amended, p. 2030, § 42, effective July 14. L. 86: (3) repealed, p. 682, § 6, effective July 1.

PART 5

PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS - FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION

13-21-501 to 13-21-505. (Repealed)

Source: L. 2023: Entire part repealed, (SB 23-168), ch. 122, p. 453, § 1, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This part 5 was added in 1986. For amendments to this part 5 prior to its repeal in 2023, consult the 2022 Colorado Revised statutes and the Colorado statutory research explanatory note beginning on page vii in the front of this volume.

PART 6

LIABILITY FOR ELECTRONIC COMPUTING DEVICE FAILURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE YEAR 2000 DATE CHANGE

13-21-601 to 13-21-604. (Repealed)

Source: L. 2011: Entire part repealed, (HB 11-1303), ch. 264, p. 1152, § 18, effective August 10. Editor's note: This part 6 was added in 1999 and was not amended prior to its repeal in 2011. For the text of this part 6 prior to 2011, consult the 2010 Colorado Revised Statutes and the Colorado statutory research explanatory note beginning on page vii in the front of this volume.

PART 7

YEAR 2000 CITIZENS' PROTECTION ACT

13-21-701 to 13-21-705. (Repealed)

Editor's note: (1) This part 7 was added in 1999 and was not amended prior to its repeal in 2006. For the text of this part 7 prior to 2006, consult the 2005 Colorado Revised Statutes. (2) Section 13-21-705 provided for the repeal of this part 7, effective December 31, 2006. (See L. 99, p. 632.)

PART 8

DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: States v. RD Werner Co., Inc., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
States v. RD Werner Co., Inc., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “Section 13-21-406, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Lippard v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 715 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 4× “2d 835 (1976) (legislatively altered by Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-406 (1985 Supp.)); Seay v.”
United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-406(1). In a minute order, the district court denied the motion.”
White v. Caterpillar, Inc., 867 P.2d 100 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “1990) (injured person cannot recover if misuse of product is sole cause of damages; if misuse and defect cause injury, misuse can constitute comparative fault which reduces recovery under § 13-21-406, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A)).”
Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 883 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 4× “Section 13-21-406. Significantly, the statute varies the common law scheme of joint and several liability by requiring defendants less negligent than the plaintiff to pay damages only in proportion to their pro rata share of causal fault.”
Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 662 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “” In our view, section 13-21-111 should be interpreted consistent with that language. Further modifications of the comparative negligence act to include consideration of absent tort-feasors should be left to the General Assembly.”
Miller v. Solaglas California, Inc., 870 P.2d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “Section 13-21-406, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D. Colo. 2002). · cites it 4× “There, comparative fault is limited to the defendants in the suit rather than non-parties at fault. That section states in pertinent part, In any product liability action, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who are parties to the…”
Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 251 P.3d 1179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “In concluding that comparative fault applied to product liability claims, the court relied upon section 13-21-406(1), C.R.S.2010, which provides, in part, that "[in any product lability action, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who…”
Forma Sci., Inc. v. BioSera, Inc., 960 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 4× “[2] Pursuant to Colorado's comparative fault statute, section 13-21-406, 5 C.R.S. (1997), the jury found Forma responsible for 60% and BioSera responsible for 40% of the total property loss, which the trial court determined to be $249,198.”
O'QUINN v. Wedco Tech., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 38 (D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 8× “Section 13-21-406 separately established that system.”
Heinrich v. Master Craft Eng'g, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 2× “; see also § 13-21-406 (“In any product liability action, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who are parties to the action, for causing the harm, shall be compared by the trier -of fact — ”).”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-406(1) — 6 cases
United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2009). “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-406(1). In a minute order, the district court denied the motion.”
Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 251 P.3d 1179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “In concluding that comparative fault applied to product liability claims, the court relied upon section 13-21-406(1), C.R.S.2010, which provides, in part, that "[in any product lability action, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who…”
States v. RD Werner Co., Inc., 799 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 13-21-406, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (D. Colo. 2002). “There, comparative fault is limited to the defendants in the suit rather than non-parties at fault. That section states in pertinent part, In any product liability action, the fault of the person suffering the harm, as well as the fault of all others who are parties to the…”
Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 819 P.2d 522 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-406(3) — 1 case
O'QUINN v. Wedco Tech., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 38 (D. Colo. 1990). “Section 13-21-406 separately established that system.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-406(4) — 1 case
O'QUINN v. Wedco Tech., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 38 (D. Colo. 1990). “Section 13-21-406 separately established that system.”
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.