Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-101 (2026)
Assumption of risk - negligence of employee or fellow servant
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In an action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by an employee while engaged in the line of duty, or for death resulting from personal injuries so sustained, in which recovery is sought upon the ground of want of ordinary care of the employer, or of the officer, agent, or servant of the employer, it shall not be a defense:
(a) That the employee, either expressly or impliedly, assumed the risk of the hazard complained of as due to the employer's negligence;
(b) That the injury or death was caused, in whole or in part, by the want of ordinary care of a fellow servant;
(c) That the injury or death was caused, in whole or in part, by the want of ordinary care of the injured employee where such want of care was not willful.
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 476, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-42-101 as it existed prior to 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. v. Keefe, 900 P.2d 97 (Colo. 1995).
Pizza Hut of Am., Inc. v. Keefe, 900 P.2d 97 (Colo. 1995). “An employer who has complied with the provisions of [the Colorado Worker's Compensation Act], including the provisions relating to insurance, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 8-41-101 [abrogating defenses of assumption of the risk and negligence of employee of…”
Cowger v. Henderson Heavy Haul Trucking Inc., 179 P.3d 116 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “71, § 8-41-101(2) at 296-97 (now codified with minor amendments as § 8-41-401(2)).”
v. Shelter Mut. Ins., 2021 CO 11 (Colo. 2021). “) ¶18 Section 8-41-102 of the WCA provides: An employer who has complied with the provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title, including the provisions relating to insurance, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 8-41-101 [concerning the unavailability of certain…”
Kent Ryser v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 480 P.3d 1286 (Colo. 2021). “) ¶18 Section 8-41-102 of the WCA provides: An employer who has complied with the provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title, including the provisions relating to insurance, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 8-41-101 [ concerning the unavailability of certain…”
Colorado Springs Disposal v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 58 P.3d 1061 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “2d at 893 ; see § 8-41-101(l)(c), C.R.S.2001 (abrogating the defense of contributory negligence in workers’ compensation cases).”
Horodyskyj v. Karanian, 32 P.3d 470 (Colo. 2001). “As relevant here, the trial court determined that Horodyskyj's tort claims were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, sections 8-41-101 to -505, 3 C.R.S. (2000).”
Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Colo. 1998). “§ 8-41-102 gives “[a]n employer who has complied with the provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title” immunity from “provisions of section 8-41-101.” It further states that “liability for the death of or personal injury to the employer.”
United Cable Television of Jeffco, Inc. v. Montgomery LC, Inc., 942 P.2d 1230 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “shall not be subject to the provisions of section 8-41-101; nor shall such employer .”
Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Collins, 723 P.2d 731 (Colo. 1986). “At several points in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, §§ 8-41-101 to 8-54-127, 3 C.R.S. (1973 & 1985 Supp.”
Stuarte v. Colorado Interstate Gas, Co., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (D. Wyo. 2001). “These no-fault provisions take the place of traditional remedies at law so that employers are immunized.”
Ft. Logan Mental Health Ctr. v. Walker, 723 P.2d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “Logan Mental Health Center and State Compensation Insurance Fund (petitioners) seek review of a final order of the Industrial Commission which determined that a job-related psychiatric disability suffered by Lewis Walker (claimant) was compensable under the Colorado Workmen's…”
Markel Ins. Co. v. Hollandsworth (D. Colo. 2019). “The Colorado courts have addressed the interplay of the Colorado Workers Compensation Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-41-101 ef seg. (“WCA”), and Colorado’s UM/UIM statute, Colo.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-101(2) — 1 case
Cowger v. Henderson Heavy Haul Trucking Inc., 179 P.3d 116 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “71, § 8-41-101(2) at 296-97 (now codified with minor amendments as § 8-41-401(2)).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-101(l)(c) — 1 case
Colorado Springs Disposal v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 58 P.3d 1061 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “2d at 893 ; see § 8-41-101(l)(c), C.R.S.2001 (abrogating the defense of contributory negligence in workers’ compensation cases).”
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.