Skip to main content
Colorado PI Settlement Calculator

Liability Primer

Comparative Negligence in Colorado

Colorado applies a modified comparative negligence system with a 50-percent bar. Claimants can recover only when their fault is less than the combined negligence of the parties they sue, and any award is reduced by their percentage of fault.[1] Understanding how that math plays out—and how insurers weaponize it—is essential to maximizing a settlement.

Colorado’s 50% bar, explained

Under § 13-21-111, juries (or adjusters in negotiations) first determine total damages without fault. They then assign percentages of negligence to each party. If the plaintiff’s share hits 50 percent or more, recovery is barred; if it stays below 50 percent, the verdict is reduced proportionally.[1]

Scenario

Low plaintiff fault (20%)

Award $250,000 → net $200,000.

Scenario

Edge of the bar (49%)

Award $250,000 → net $127,500.

Scenario

Barred claim (50%)

Award $250,000 → zero recovery.

Intake teams should flag any fact pattern that could push fault over 40 percent—once comparative arguments cross 45 percent, settlement leverage drops precipitously.

Nonparty fault & joint liability

Colorado abolished joint and several liability in most cases. Defendants are liable only for their proportion of negligence, and they can designate nonparties at fault to siphon off percentages.[2] Miss the 90-day designation response window and you risk losing the chance to contest a nonparty’s inclusion.

  • Nonparty designations: Defendants must file within 90 days of the answer; plaintiffs should rebut with evidence or move to strike if speculative.[2]
  • Empty chair strategy: Adjusters often inflate a nonparty’s fault even when minimal involvement exists. Counter with witness statements and contract documents.
  • Contribution actions: A settling defendant can seek contribution only if it paid more than its fault share—use this when allocating settlement between multiple carriers.[2]

Assumption of risk & specialized defenses

Colorado merges implied assumption of risk into the comparative negligence calculus.[3] The defense bears the burden of proving the plaintiff knowingly encountered the danger, and the percentage reduces the award like any other fault allocation.

  • Express waivers: Ski, recreation, or gym waivers can still be attacked for public-policy violations or ambiguity. Don’t concede assumption of risk without reviewing the contract language.
  • Seat belt defense: C.R.S. § 42-4-237 caps the reduction at 15 percent and requires evidence that non-use caused a portion of the injuries.[5]
  • Helmet arguments: Colorado has no universal helmet law; argue lack of statutory duty and highlight case-specific medical testimony to defeat defense speculation.

Evidence that moves the percentage

Liability boosters

  • Scene photos with measurements or drone capture for perspective.
  • ECU/EDR downloads showing speed, braking, or steering input.
  • Witness statements memorialized within 48 hours.
  • Prior incident or code enforcement records proving notice.

Pitfalls to avoid

  • Client social media contradicting claimed limitations.
  • Gaps in treatment without documented explanations.
  • Failure to preserve damaged products or vehicles.
  • Ignoring subpoena deadlines for surveillance or bodycam footage.

Calculator workflow & negotiation prep

The calculator makes comparative negligence visible in every scenario. Use it to model negotiation brackets and prepare for mediation.

  1. Start with zero fault to see the maximum recoverable value, then ratchet the slider in 5-percent increments until you hit your documented liability posture.
  2. Save liability notes in the full evaluation flow—summaries feed directly into demand letters and deposition outlines.
  3. Export the PDF to show adjusters how different percentages affect net value; it underscores the stakes of inflated comparative arguments.
  4. Combine with the car accident hub and guide charts to give clients visual talking points ahead of mediation.

Settlement strategy checklist

  • Document nonparty exposure: Track contractors, property managers, and product manufacturers to blunt empty-chair defenses.[2]
  • Address assumption of risk early: Include waiver analysis and risk disclosures in the initial demand to preempt defense letters.[3]
  • Highlight collateral source limits: Remind adjusters that collateral source payments cannot reduce the verdict unless statutory requirements are met.[4]
  • Build jury-friendly visuals: Create percentage pie charts and timeline exhibits to reinforce your preferred allocation—mirrors the Colorado Jury Instructions approach.[6]

References