Can I Get Sued After a Car Accident in Colorado? Does Fault Matter?

Colorado uses modified comparative fault: a plaintiff barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault. Below 50%, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence under § 13-21-111. That is what separates Colorado being sued after a car accident from a generic national summary. Read Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111 before the background sections below. The personal-injury deadline is 3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III). Colorado is an at-fault state with mandatory liability insurance and optional medical-payment coverage; tort suits against negligent drivers are not blocked by a no-fault threshold.

Comparative fault and negligence in Colorado

Colorado uses modified comparative fault: a plaintiff barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault. Below 50%, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence under § 13-21-111.

In Colorado, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.

Practical consequences:

• Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
• Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
• Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Colorado allocation rules.

Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds

Colorado is an at-fault state with mandatory liability insurance and optional medical-payment coverage; tort suits against negligent drivers are not blocked by a no-fault threshold.

First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Colorado uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.

Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)

3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III)

Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.

A concrete Colorado scenario

Here is one way the Colorado pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.

Two drivers collide in Colorado. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.

1. Identify the fault system: In Colorado, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
2. Apply what fault does to the claim: Colorado uses modified comparative fault: a plaintiff barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault. Below 50%, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence under § 13-21-111.
3. Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III).
4. Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Colorado is an at-fault state with mandatory liability insurance and optional medical-payment coverage; tort suits against negligent drivers are not blocked by a no-fault threshold.

In Colorado the accident lawsuit turns on Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111 and the modified 50 rule, not on a national no-fault script.

What to do after a crash in Colorado

1. Get medical care and document injuries.
2. Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
3. Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
4. Calendar the SOL: 3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III).
5. Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Colorado) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.

Case law: fault and auto accidents in Colorado

Barbara J. KUSSMAN, Petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Respondent — Neighbors, J., concurring

Barbara J. KUSSMAN, Petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Respondent — Neighbors, J., concurring, 1985 Colo. LEXIS 510 (1985)

…pretation of the facts and the law confuses the doctrine of comparative negligence with that of contribution. The net result is no different than a case in which the claimant herself is negligent rather than having a third party’s negligence imputed to her. I know of no authority which adopts the rule that a claimant can be characterized as a joint tort-feasor with others conce…

Practitioners open Barbara J. KUSSMAN, Petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Respondent — Neighbors, J., concurring when Colorado car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The net result is no different than a case in which the claimant herself is negligent rather than having a third party’s negligence imputed to her." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO., Petitioner, v. William James FRACKELTON, Respondent

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO., Petitioner, v. William James FRACKELTON, Respondent, 662 P.2d 1056 (1983)

…involves the interpretation of and relationship between the comparative *1057 negligence statute, section 13-21-111, C.R. S.1973 & 1982 Supp., and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, sections 13-50.5-101 to 106, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.). In National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Frackelton, 650 P.2d 571 (Colo.App.1981), the court of appeals reversed the di…

Colorado opinions such as NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO., Petitioner, v. William James FRACKELTON, Respondent are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "C.R. S.1973 & 1982 Supp., and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, sections 13-50.5-101 to 106, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.). In National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Frackelton, 650 P.2d 571 (Colo.App." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Yolanda GORMAN, Petitioner, v. Janice K. TUCKER, by and Through Her Legal Guardians and Next Friends, Beverly A

Yolanda GORMAN, Petitioner, v. Janice K. TUCKER, by and Through Her Legal Guardians and Next Friends, Beverly A, 98 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3559 (1998)

…versing the trial court, the court of appeals held that the comparative negligence statute, see § 13-21-111, 5 C.R.S. (1997), does not bar recovery by the state under the CMAA. We now affirm. I. In the early morning hours of October 17, 1992, the recipient, Janice K. Tucker (Tucker), was an inebriated pedestrian who was struck by a car driven by the defendant, Yolanda Gorman. T…

Practitioners open Yolanda GORMAN, Petitioner, v. Janice K. TUCKER, by and Through Her Legal Guardians and Next Friends, Beverly A when Colorado car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "C.R.S. (1997), does not bar recovery by the state under the CMAA. We now affirm. I. In the early morning hours of October 17, 1992, the recipient, Janice K. Tucker (Tucker), was an inebriated pedestrian who was struck by a car driven by the defendant, Yolanda Gorman." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

MOUNTAIN MOBILE MIX, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Petitioner, v. Pete GIFFORD, Individually and D/B/A Foothills

MOUNTAIN MOBILE MIX, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Petitioner, v. Pete GIFFORD, Individually and D/B/A Foothills, 1983 Colo. LEXIS 481 (1983)

…ing the liability of multiple defendants under the Colorado comparative negligence statute, section 13-21-111, C.R. S.1973. The sole issue is whether the comparative negligence statute should be interpreted to require that the contributory negligence of a plaintiff be compared against the combined negligence of multiple defendants. The court of appeals held that an individual c…

Practitioners open MOUNTAIN MOBILE MIX, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Petitioner, v. Pete GIFFORD, Individually and D/B/A Foothills when Colorado car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Colorado comparative negligence statute, section 13-21-111, C.R. S.1973. The sole issue is whether the comparative negligence statute should be interpreted to require that the contributory negligence of a plaintiff be compared against the combined negligence of multiple defendants." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Craig W. WHITE, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Gary L. HANSEN, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

Craig W. WHITE, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Gary L. HANSEN, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 1486 (1992)

…hether section 13-21-111(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973), of Colorado’s comparative negligence statute permits the negligence of one party to be compared to the willful and wanton conduct of another. 2. Whether a statement taken from an injured person in violation of section 13-21-301, 6A C.R.S. (1982 Supp.), may be used by the person taking such statements in an action arising out of the…

Practitioners open Craig W. WHITE, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Gary L. HANSEN, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner when Colorado car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "C.R.S. (1973), of Colorado’s comparative negligence statute permits the negligence of one party to be compared to the willful and wanton conduct of another. 2. Whether a statement taken from an injured person in violation of section 13-21-301, 6A C.R.S. (1982 Supp." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

B.G.'S, INC., D/B/A Drink-N-Dawg, Petitioner, v. Marla GROSS, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Gary A

B.G.'S, INC., D/B/A Drink-N-Dawg, Petitioner, v. Marla GROSS, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Gary A, 23 P.3d 691 (2001)

…loss or injury was not subject to reduction by operation of comparative fault principles. Because the plain language of the solatium statute does not allow for a reduction of the $50,000 award, and because the solatium statute is the later and more specific enactment, a solatium award is not subject to reduction by operation of either the comparative negligence statute, § 13-21…

B.G.'S, INC., D/B/A Drink-N-Dawg, Petitioner, v. Marla GROSS, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Gary A is worth reading on Colorado car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "loss or injury was not subject to reduction by operation of comparative fault principles. Because the plain language of the solatium statute does not allow for a reduction of the $50,000 award, and because the solatium statute is the later and more specific enactment, a solatium" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Key takeaways

• Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 50% bar (recovery barred at 50% or more fault).
• Controlling authority: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.
• In Colorado, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
• Personal-injury filing deadline: 3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III).
• Insurance: Colorado is an at-fault state with mandatory liability insurance and optional medical-payment coverage; tort suits against negligent drivers are not blocked by a no-fault threshold.

Can you be sued after a car accident in Colorado?

Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.

You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.

Frequently asked questions

Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?

Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Colorado’s modified 50 rules under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.

What if I was partly at fault?

In Colorado, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.

How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Colorado?

3 years for motor-vehicle injuries — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(n)(III)

Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?

Colorado is an at-fault state with mandatory liability insurance and optional medical-payment coverage; tort suits against negligent drivers are not blocked by a no-fault threshold. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.