Design Defect Product Liability Complaint - Colorado

COMPLAINT FOR DESIGN DEFECT (STRICT LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE) — COLORADO

1. CAPTION

DISTRICT COURT, [____] COUNTY, COLORADO

[COURT ADDRESS]

Case No.: [____] Division/Courtroom: [____]

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, brings this product liability action against Defendants for personal injuries proximately caused by the defective design of [PRODUCT TYPE] (the "Product"), which Defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold.

3. PARTIES

3.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is, and at all relevant times was, an individual residing in [COUNTY] County, Colorado.

3.2. Defendant [MANUFACTURER NAME] ("Manufacturer") is a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business in [CITY, STATE], engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, and selling the Product, and a "manufacturer" within the meaning of C.R.S. § 13-21-401(1).

3.3. Defendant [DISTRIBUTOR/SELLER NAME] ("Seller") is a [entity] engaged in the business of distributing and/or selling the Product in Colorado, and a "seller" within the meaning of C.R.S. § 13-21-401(3).

4. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Article VI, § 9 of the Colorado Constitution.

4.2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under C.R.S. § 13-1-124 because each Defendant transacts business in Colorado and/or caused tortious injury in Colorado by introducing the Product into the stream of commerce.

4.3. Venue is proper in this County under C.R.C.P. 98 because [the injury occurred / a Defendant resides or transacts business / the Product was sold] in this County.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Product

5.1. The Product at issue is [PRODUCT NAME / MODEL / DESCRIPTION; model year; serial/lot number] (the "Product").

5.2. The Product was designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants and reached Plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

B. The Design Defect

5.3. The Product's design was defective and in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user because [describe the design feature(s) that created the hazard].

5.4. The design rendered the Product unsafe for its intended and reasonably foreseeable uses, including [USE].

C. Risk-Utility / Risk-Benefit Analysis

5.5. Under the risk-benefit analysis adopted in Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986), the risks of the Product's design outweigh its utility, considering: the usefulness and desirability of the Product; the likelihood and probable seriousness of injury; the availability of a substitute product meeting the same need without being unsafe; the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character without impairing usefulness or making it unduly expensive; the user's ability to avoid danger; the user's anticipated awareness of the danger; and the feasibility of spreading the loss by pricing or insurance.

D. Feasible Safer Alternative Design

5.6. At the time of design and manufacture, a reasonable, technically and economically feasible alternative design existed that would have reduced or prevented the harm, namely: [DESCRIBE THE SAFER ALTERNATIVE DESIGN], and its omission rendered the Product's design defective.

E. Plaintiff's Use and Injury

5.7. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff used the Product in a manner that was intended and reasonably foreseeable.

5.8. On or about [__/__/____], as a direct and proximate result of the design defect, Plaintiff sustained [INJURY DESCRIPTION], requiring medical treatment at [PROVIDER/HOSPITAL].

5.9. Plaintiff did not misuse, alter, or modify the Product in any manner that was not reasonably foreseeable.

6. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECT

(Against All Defendants)

6.1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

6.2. Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling the Product and placed it into the stream of commerce.

6.3. The Product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user by reason of its design when it left Defendants' control. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, adopted in Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1975).

6.4. The defectiveness of the design is established under the risk-benefit analysis of Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), because the risks of the design outweigh its utility and a feasible safer alternative design was available.

6.5. The design defect was a cause of Plaintiff's injuries and was present at the time the Product was sold.

6.6. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

7. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF — NEGLIGENT DESIGN

(Against All Defendants)

7.1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

7.2. Defendants owed Plaintiff and foreseeable users a duty to exercise reasonable care in designing the Product, including a duty to conduct adequate design testing and to adopt feasible safer designs.

7.3. Defendants breached that duty by [failing to test; ignoring known design hazards; failing to incorporate available safety technology; disregarding industry or government standards — [____]].

7.4. Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the Product's design created an unreasonable risk of harm.

7.5. Defendants' negligence was a cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

8. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF — BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Against All Defendants)

8.1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

8.2. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 4-2-314, Defendants impliedly warranted that the Product was merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

8.3. The Product was not merchantable because of its defective design, and that breach caused Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff gave notice within a reasonable time after discovery, or is excused from notice as a remote purchaser.

8.4. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

9. DAMAGES

9.1. Economic Damages. Past and future medical, hospital, and rehabilitative expenses; past and future lost earnings and loss of earning capacity; property damage; and out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be proven at trial.

9.2. Non-Economic Damages. Past and future physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, and emotional distress, subject to applicable statutory caps.

9.3. Exemplary (Punitive) Damages. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-102, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend to assert exemplary damages upon a showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendants' conduct was attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct. Such damages are capped at the amount of actual damages awarded.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally to the extent permitted by law, as follows:

• A. Compensatory economic and non-economic damages according to proof;
• B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by C.R.S. §§ 13-21-101 and 5-12-102;
• C. Costs of suit and expert fees as allowed by law;
• D. Leave to seek exemplary damages under C.R.S. § 13-21-102; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to C.R.C.P. 38.

12. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [____]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Atty. Reg. No. [______]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [(___) ___-____]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and served on all parties or their counsel of record via the Colorado Courts E-Filing system pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-26, or by [mail / personal service] at the addresses below.

[NAME / ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY SERVED]

[____]

[NAME OF DECLARANT]

14. COLORADO PRACTICE NOTES

• Risk-benefit test governs design defect. Colorado applies a risk-benefit analysis to design-defect claims. Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), held that the consumer-expectation test alone is insufficient to take a design-defect case from the jury where the danger is not obvious; the jury weighs the multi-factor risk-benefit considerations drawn from Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986). Consumer expectations remain a relevant factor, not an independent test.

• Restatement (Second) § 402A. Colorado follows § 402A ("defective condition unreasonably dangerous"). Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1975). A feasible alternative design is central proof but Colorado has not adopted the Restatement (Third) as such.

• Statutory presumptions (C.R.S. § 13-21-403). Compliance with applicable government or industry standards in effect at the time of sale creates a rebuttable presumption that the product was not defective. Critically, ten years after a product is first sold, there is a rebuttable presumption that the product was not defective and that the manufacturer/seller was not negligent. Plead facts to rebut these presumptions where the product is older.

• Statute of limitations and repose. Product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues. C.R.S. § 13-80-106. C.R.S. § 13-80-107 governs limitation for actions against manufacturers/sellers and contains a seven-year provision tied to first use for products that are "new manufacturing equipment"; for other products the ten-year non-defectiveness presumption of § 13-21-403 functions as the principal repose-type defense. Confirm which provision applies to the specific product.

• Comparative fault. Under C.R.S. § 13-21-406, the plaintiff's recovery in a product liability action is diminished in proportion to the plaintiff's comparative fault, and recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the aggregate fault of all others (modified comparative fault, 50% bar). Product misuse and alteration are codified considerations.

• Exemplary damages. Capped at the amount of actual damages under C.R.S. § 13-21-102; require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; cannot be pleaded in the original complaint (add by amendment after prima facie evidence).

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987) — https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1987/85sc112-0.html
• Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986)
• Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1975)
• C.R.S. § 13-21-401 et seq. (product liability) — https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes
• C.R.S. § 13-21-403 (rebuttable presumptions; ten-year presumption)
• C.R.S. § 13-21-406 (comparative fault)
• C.R.S. §§ 13-80-106, 13-80-107 (limitations)
• C.R.S. § 13-21-102 (exemplary damages)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Colorado must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.