Bindinglaw

CO · rules

C.R.C.P. 51.1

Colorado Jury Instructions

activein force · 2023-12-01 – presentact-effective-date

(1) In instructing the jury in a civil case, the court shall use such instructions as are

contained in Colorado Jury Instruction (CJI) as are applicable to the evidence and the

prevailing law.

(2) In cases in which there are no CJI instructions on the subject, or in which the

factual situation or changes in the law warrant a departure from the CJI instructions, the

court shall instruct the jury as to the prevailing law applicable to the evidence in a manner

which is clear, unambiguous, impartial and free from argument, using CJI instructions as

models as to the form so far as possible.

History

Editor’s note: The Colorado Jury Instructions are contained in a book prepared by the Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Civil Jury Instructions. ANNOTATION Intent of the Colorado supreme court in promulgating these instructions was to pro- vide clear and impartial forms for use by the trial court in preparing instructions for juries. These forms are to be used with discrimination, keeping in mind that they are not law in them- selves and, in order to continually provide ac- curate assistance to juries, must be refined and modified in accord with changes in statutes and the body of appellate decisions. Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo. App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). In promulgating the Colorado jury instruc- tions, it was not the purpose of the Colorado supreme court to compile a restatement or an encyclopedia of prevailing law. Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo. App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). Trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction in personal injury action which provided that, if the jury should find in favor of the plaintiff, it ‘‘should not add any sum for income taxes as such an award is not taxable under federal and state tax laws’’, because the subject matter of this instruction is not covered in the Colorado jury instructions as one to be given. Davis v. Fortino & Jackson Chevrolet Co., 32 Colo. App. 222, 510 P.2d 1376 (1973). Trial court committed harmless error by instructing jury in personal injury action not to adjust amount of damages awarded in order to compensate for income taxes since damages are not taxable. Rego Co. v. McKown-Katy, 801 P.2d 536 (Colo. 1990). Court did not abuse its discretion in pro- viding respondeat superior doctrine to jury in its jury instructions. Where medical negligence cases involve acts or omissions during surgery, the jury should be instructed that a surgeon is vicariously liable for the negligence of subordi- nate hospital employees. Ochoa v. V ered, 212 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2009). Jury instruction stating that ‘‘[a]n exercise of judgment that results in an unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a phy- sician was negligent’’ accurately reflects the law. The instruction does not impose a subjec- tive standard of care on a physician whose ex- ercise of judgment results in an unsuccessful outcome. Rather, it informs juries that a bad outcome that results from a physician’s exercise of judgment does not by itself constitute negli- gence. Day v. Johnson, 232 P.3d 175 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d, 255 P.3d 1064 (Colo. 2011). Jury award of zero damages indicated that the jury failed to follow court instructions as the evidence was undisputed with respect to the existence and nature of the injuries sustained. Martinez v. Shapland, 833 P.2d 837 (Colo. App. 1992). The instructions found in the Colorado jury instructions are not to be used if they do not reflect the prevailing law. Federal Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977). The trial court has the duty to examine the prevailing law to determine whether a Colo- rado jury instruction is applicable to the facts of the particular case and states the prevailing law. Federal Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977). Where there was no statute or rule to sup- port the presumption created by a jury in- struction, the presumption could only be prop- erly given if it was supported by common law rules governing the admissibility and evidentiary effect of defendant electrical utili- ty’s compliance with industry standards. Y ampa V alley Elec. v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1993). Doctrine of sudden emergency abolished. The state’s negligence law no longer requires sudden emergency jury instruction. Jury in- struction’s potential to mislead jury outweighs minimal utility of instruction. Bedor v. Johnson, 2013 CO 4, 292 P.3d 924. Applied in Sherwood v. Graco, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1977); Price v. Sommermeyer, 41 Colo. App. 147, 584 P.2d 1220 (1978); Mailloux v. Bradley, 643 P.2d 797 (Colo. App. 1982); Peterson v. Tadolini, 97 P.3d 359 (Colo. App. 2004).

Provenance

Source
content.leg.colorado.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-15
Edition
2026-09-15
Content hash
99b51cb6d6761c5994fecc5ebfd55f459a99bc85238b3551a2b5241c09845633
View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
C.R.C.P. 51.1 — Colorado Jury Instructions · binding.law