Post-accident chaos raises a brutal question: “What if I share the blame?” Colorado answers it with a 50-percent bar rule. As long as your negligence stays below that line, you can pursue damages, but every percentage point chips away at the recovery.[1][2]
Need a fast math refresher before diving in? Skim the comparative negligence reference chart for fault scenarios you can plug into the calculator.
Understanding how juries calculate fault, how insurers weaponize the threshold, and how to build a math-ready evidence file keeps negotiations grounded and prevents the claim from being dismissed outright.
Colorado’s 50% bar, in plain English
Colorado uses a modified comparative negligence system codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111. Claimants recover only if their fault is less than the fault assigned to the party they are suing.[2]A jury (or judge in a bench trial) must:
- Set the full damages as if the plaintiff were blameless.
- Assign each party a negligence percentage.
- Reduce the plaintiff’s award by that percentage, or enter judgment for the defense if the plaintiff reaches 50 percent fault.[2]
Example: a $120,000 verdict with 25 percent fault attributed to the plaintiff nets $90,000. A 50 percent finding zeroes the verdict entirely. A swing from 49 to 50 percent literally flips the outcome.
Where Colorado fits on the national spectrum
Contributory negligence states still bar recovery when plaintiffs are even 1 percent at fault, an unforgiving approach Colorado abandoned decades ago.[1] On the other end, pure comparative negligence jurisdictions let plaintiffs recover even when they shoulder 90 percent of the blame (they just collect the remaining 10 percent).
Colorado’s middle-ground model incentivizes meticulous liability work: the closer defense counsel can push your client toward the 50-percent bar, the easier it is to kill the claim or slash the settlement.
How fault gets assigned
Fault percentages flow from evidence. Expect juries and carriers in pre-suit talks to weigh:
- Crash reports, citations, and officer narratives.
- Witness statements, traffic or surveillance video, and dashcam captures.
- Event data recorder downloads, scene photos, and reconstruction analysis.
- Medical timelines tying each injury to the incident.
Defense teams emphasize gaps in treatment, missed safety cues, or violations of statutes to ratchet up comparative fault. Plaintiffs counter with disciplined documentation and expert context (e.g., why braking distances or delayed symptoms still align with the defendant’s negligence).
Assumption of risk folds into the math
Colorado handles primary assumption of risk inside the comparative negligence framework. Juries consider whether the plaintiff knowingly exposed themselves to a known danger and then apportion fault under § 13-21-111.7.[3] Riding with an intoxicated driver, ignoring weather warnings, or bypassing posted safety protocols can all inflate the plaintiff’s percentage.
Negotiating with the 50% cliff in mind
Because Colorado is an at-fault insurance state, the carrier for the negligent driver pays only if the claimant stays under 50 percent fault.[1] Adjusters probe for admissions, recorded statements, and social content to push liability north. Counter with a proactive package:
- Chronologies that address potential “open and obvious” or speed arguments head-on.
- Expert statements explaining why alleged comparative negligence is speculative.
- Demand letters that walk through the statutory formula and show the client’s percentage firmly below the bar.