Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-209 (2026)

Loss of consortium

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

In all actions for a tort by a married person, both spouses have an equal right to recover for loss of consortium of his or her spouse.

Source: L. 61: p. 560, § 1. CRS 53: § 90-2-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 90-2-11. L. 2018: Entire part amended, (SB 18-090), ch. 72, p. 638, § 2, effective August 8.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1980–1999 · leading case: Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274 (1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274 (1980). · cites it 2× “2d 669 (1974); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-209 (1973); Hopson v.”
Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1999). · cites it 4× “For instance, in 1961, the General Assembly enacted section 14-2-209, 5 C.R.S. (1999), regarding claims for loss of spousal consortium.”
In Re the Marriage of Fields, 779 P.2d 1371 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “In this jurisdiction, the right of a spouse to recover damages arising out of the tortious conduct of another has, in effect, been treated as a separate property right.”
Lee v. Colorado Dep't of Health, 718 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1986). “” § 14-2-209, 6 C.R.S. (1973); see Ch. 180, sec.”
Reighley v. Int'l Playtex, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 1078 (D. Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-2-209 (1973); Crouch v.”
Romero v. Byers, 872 P.2d 840 (N.M. 1994). “Four states recognize a claim by statute: Colorado, Colo. Rev.Stat. § 14-2-209 (1989); Kansas, Kan.”
Rains v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 897 P.2d 845 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Tate v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 815 P.”
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.