CO · jury_instructions
CJI-Civ. 28:13
Invasion of Privacy — Affirmative Defense — Consent
The defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the plaintiff, (name), on the claim
of invasion of privacy by (intrusion) (appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness) (public
disclosure of private facts) (placing plaintiff in a false light), if the affirmative defense of
consent has been proved. The defense is proved if you find both of the following:
1. The plaintiff, by words or conduct or both, led the defendant reasonably to
believe that (insert applicable pronoun) had (authorized) (or) (agreed to) the defendant’s
conduct in (describe conduct in issue, e.g., entering the plaintiff’s home, recording of plaintiff’s
conversation, publicizing of facts concerning plaintiff, use of plaintiff’s picture, etc.); and
2. The defendant acted in a manner and for a purpose (to which the plaintiff agreed)
(to which the defendant reasonably believed the plaintiff agreed) (that the plaintiff
authorized) (that the defendant reasonably believed the plaintiff authorized).
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
3792b0f8eb21d6bfc4775166604db582fd12cccdc8a41511362f45fbe7b8664f
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.