CO · jury_instructions
CJI-Civ. 14:28
Affirmative Defense — Comparative Fault Based on Unreasonable, Knowing Use of Product Involving Negligently Created Risk, Product Not in Compliance with Warranty, or Defective or Misrepresented Product
A form of comparative fault is the voluntary and unreasonable use of a defective
product with knowledge of the specific danger created by a defect. Such comparative fault
is an affirmative defense that is proved if you find all of the following by a preponderance
of the evidence:
1. At the time the plaintiff, (name), (was) (claims to have been) injured, (insert
applicable pronoun) had actual knowledge of the specific danger created by the defect, and
knew that this specific danger created a risk of (injury) (damages);
2. The plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably exposed (insert applicable pronoun) to
the risk of injury; and
3. The plaintiff’s (use) (continued use) of the product after acquiring such
knowledge was a cause of (insert applicable pronoun) claimed injuries.
History
CJI-Civ. (2026), Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions. Dated 2026-02-25 by the committee page's "Revised 2/25/26".
Provenance
- Source
- www.coloradojudicial.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- civ-2026-02-25
- Content hash
85ea20258c60c2cab66ab719a9a350f4bfc12456ca60ea98af9b4478e65ca6c0
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.