Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-104 (2026)

Negligence - civil actions

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

(1) A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.

(2) A violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article 44 or any rule promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 12-150-105 (1)(a) shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.

(3) All rules adopted or amended by the passenger tramway safety board are subject to sections 24-4-103 (8)(c) and (8)(d) and 24-34-104 (6)(b), C.R.S.

Source: L. 79: Entire article added, p. 1238, § 1. effective July 1. L. 80: (3) amended, p. 789, § 28, effective June 5. L. 81: (3) amended, p. 1179, § 10, effective July 1. L. 94: (2) amended, p. 1644, § 74, effective May 31. L. 2016: (3) amended, (HB 16-1192), ch. 83, p. 235, § 23, effective April 14. L. 2019: (2) amended, (HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1721, § 224, effective October 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 20× “Any violation of the statute's provisions applicable to skiers constitutes negligence on their part; in tandem, any violations by a ski area operator of the Ski Safety Act or the Tramway Act constitute negligence as to them.”
In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC, 2024 CO 30 (Colo. 2024). · cites it 11× “¶28 As pertinent here, section 33-44-104(1)–(2), C.R.S. (2023), provides that a violation of any requirement of article 44 (i.”
Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 5× “§ 33-44-104(1). 6 In 1990, the SSA was amended to clarify the law regarding these duties and responsibilities, and to reduce for ski area operators the amount, unpredictability, and expense of litigation arising from skiing accidents: Legislative declaration.”
Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 909 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 8× “§ 33-44-104(2), 14 C.R.S. (1984). The legislative declaration noted generally that dangers inhere in the sport of skiing, but the original Act did not otherwise include any language pertaining to inherent dangers and risks of skiing.”
Pizza v. Wolf Creek Ski Dev. Corp., 711 P.2d 671 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 5× “Section 33-44-104, 14 C.R.S. (1984), provides in pertinent part: (1) A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.”
v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 2020 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “”); § 33-44-104(1), C.R.S. 2020 (“A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.”
Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 888 P.2d 310 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Section 33-44-104(1), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol.”
Phillips v. Monarch Rec. Corp., 668 P.2d 982 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “These included an instruction that violation of any requirement of the act which causes injury to any person constitutes negligence by virtue of § 33-44-104, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.); an instruction that whenever maintenance equipment is being employed to maintain or groom…”
Anderson v. Vail Corp., 251 P.3d 1125 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" § 33-44-104(2), C.R.S.2010. The trial court correctly noted that section 83-44-107(6) "does not explicitly or implicitly require a certain number, specific placement or distance between ski area boundary signs.”
Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Colo. 1998). · cites it 3× “5) (“‘inherent dangers and risks of skiing’ do not include the negligence of a ski operator as set forth in section 33-44-104(2)”); § 33-44-104(2) (“[a] violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article .”
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014). “Colo Rev Stat § 33-44-104(1) (violation of duties of ski area operator constitutes negligence to extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property); see also Anderson v.”
Raup v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “) (citing C.R.S. § 33-44-104(2)). Each of the three passengers allegedly obeyed the operator’s command to disembark.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-104(1) — 8 cases
Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007). “§ 33-44-104(1). 6 In 1990, the SSA was amended to clarify the law regarding these duties and responsibilities, and to reduce for ski area operators the amount, unpredictability, and expense of litigation arising from skiing accidents: Legislative declaration.”
In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC, 2024 CO 30 (Colo. 2024). “¶28 As pertinent here, section 33-44-104(1)–(2), C.R.S. (2023), provides that a violation of any requirement of article 44 (i.”
Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 888 P.2d 310 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 33-44-104(1), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol.”
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014). “Colo Rev Stat § 33-44-104(1) (violation of duties of ski area operator constitutes negligence to extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property); see also Anderson v.”
v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 2020 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “”); § 33-44-104(1), C.R.S. 2020 (“A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-104(2) — 13 cases
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998). “Any violation of the statute's provisions applicable to skiers constitutes negligence on their part; in tandem, any violations by a ski area operator of the Ski Safety Act or the Tramway Act constitute negligence as to them.”
In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC, 2024 CO 30 (Colo. 2024). “¶28 As pertinent here, section 33-44-104(1)–(2), C.R.S. (2023), provides that a violation of any requirement of article 44 (i.”
Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 909 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1996). “§ 33-44-104(2), 14 C.R.S. (1984). The legislative declaration noted generally that dangers inhere in the sport of skiing, but the original Act did not otherwise include any language pertaining to inherent dangers and risks of skiing.”
v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 2020 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “”); § 33-44-104(1), C.R.S. 2020 (“A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.”
Pizza v. Wolf Creek Ski Dev. Corp., 711 P.2d 671 (Colo. 1985). “Section 33-44-104, 14 C.R.S. (1984), provides in pertinent part: (1) A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.”
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.