Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Introduction

Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Rules provide an important context for understanding negligence laws in Colorado. The comparative negligence rule is an aspect of common law that applies to car accident and personal injury cases. This rule is an important tool for judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals as it helps determine fault and liability for an injury event. Put simply, the comparative negligence rule states that any party found to be at least partially responsible for an injury event is held financially responsible for their percentage of fault. This article will discuss the history and application of Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Rule and provide further discussion of it in the Colorado legal system.

History

Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Rule began as a common law doctrine in 1895. At the time, it was known as the “all or nothing” rule and addressed fault in personal injury cases by determining whether an individual was 100% at fault and thus the only party responsible for the damages. If an injured party was deemed to be at least partially at fault for the injuries, then any damages would be dismissed.

In 1963, a law professor suggested the idea of replacing the “all or nothing” rule with a supportive version of the Contributory Negligence Rule. This would mean that instead of an injured party being barred from any potential recovery, they would instead be held accountable for their percentage of fault and allowed to recover damages accordingly. The suggestion was met with much support from the state and eventually passed with the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling.

Application

The Colorado Comparative Negligence Rule states that if a person or party is deemed to be at least partially responsible for an injury event, they are held liable for the full extent of their percentage of fault. This is true regardless of the severity of the injury and the level of damages claimed by the injured party. Courts use this rule to assign proportionate liability regardless of who or what was at fault at the time of the event.

For example, if a person was involved in an automobile accident and was observed to be 50% at fault for the accident, their negligence would be deemed to be a cause of the accident. Therefore, the person would be held liable for 50% of the damages caused by the accident, regardless of how much the damages were. If a fault assignment is disputed by any of the parties, the burden of proof is on the other party to establish how much fault lies with each side.

Conclusion

Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Rule provides an important context for understanding negligence laws in Colorado. This rule determines the level of liability for an injury event based on the percentage of fault attributed to each party. This rule has been in place for over 100 years and has been an important tool used to legally assign fault and liability in personal injury cases.