Product Liability Complaint - Colorado

PRODUCT LIABILITY COMPLAINT — COLORADO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. Background Facts
4. Count I — Strict Liability: Manufacturing Defect
5. Count II — Strict Liability: Design Defect (Risk-Utility / Crashworthiness)
6. Count III — Strict Liability: Failure to Warn / Inadequate Instructions
7. Count IV — Negligence
8. Count V — Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Demand for Trial by Jury
12. Reservation of Rights
13. Signature and Service Blocks
14. Verification
15. Certificate of Service
16. Colorado Practice Notes
17. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

DISTRICT COURT, [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY, COLORADO

Court Address: [________________________________]

Case Number: [________________________________]

Division: [____] Courtroom: [____]

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME], by and through undersigned counsel, complains and alleges against Defendants as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a natural person and a resident of [COUNTY] County, Colorado, and was a resident of Colorado at all times relevant to this Complaint.

1.2. Defendant [MANUFACTURER NAME] ("Manufacturer") is a [corporation / limited liability company] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Manufacturer is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, and distributing the product at issue and may be served through its registered agent [REGISTERED AGENT NAME AND ADDRESS].

1.3. Defendant [DISTRIBUTOR NAME] ("Distributor") is a [corporation / limited liability company] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Distributor is engaged in the business of distributing and supplying the product at issue and may be served through its registered agent [REGISTERED AGENT NAME AND ADDRESS].

1.4. Defendant [RETAILER NAME] ("Retailer") is a [corporation / limited liability company] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], and operates a place of business in [COUNTY] County, Colorado, where it sold the product at issue. Retailer may be served through its registered agent [REGISTERED AGENT NAME AND ADDRESS].

1.5. Each Defendant is a "manufacturer" or "seller" as those terms are defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-401.

1.6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9 and C.R.S. § 13-1-124. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the County Court (C.R.S. § 13-6-104).

1.7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-1-124 because each Defendant transacts business in Colorado, contracted to supply goods in Colorado, and/or committed tortious acts the consequences of which occurred in Colorado.

1.8. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County under Colo. R. Civ. P. 98(c) because the tort occurred in this county and/or one or more Defendants reside or maintain a principal place of business in this county.

1.9. This action is brought within two (2) years of accrual and is therefore timely under C.R.S. § 13-80-106.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS

2.1. The "Product" at issue is a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL / DESCRIPTION], [serial / model number / lot number], designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants for use by ordinary consumers (the "Product").

2.2. The Product was placed into the stream of commerce by Manufacturer on or about [DATE] and was sold to Plaintiff (or to [ORIGINAL PURCHASER]) by Retailer on or about [DATE] at [STORE LOCATION].

2.3. The Product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to ordinary users and consumers, and was expected to and did reach Plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

2.4. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was using the Product for its intended and reasonably foreseeable purpose, namely [DESCRIBE USE], in [CITY, COUNTY], Colorado.

2.5. While Plaintiff was using the Product as intended, the Product [DESCRIBE FAILURE — e.g., shattered, ignited, ejected component, lost structural integrity, malfunctioned] (the "Incident").

2.6. As a direct and proximate result of the Incident, Plaintiff suffered [DESCRIBE INJURIES — e.g., severe burns, traumatic brain injury, fractures, internal injuries, permanent scarring] requiring emergency treatment at [HOSPITAL] and ongoing medical care.

2.7. At the time of the Incident, Plaintiff was using the Product in the manner reasonably anticipated by Defendants and had not altered, modified, or misused the Product.

2.8. The defective condition of the Product, and not any act or omission of Plaintiff or any third party, was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

2.9. Plaintiff first discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence first should have discovered, both the injury and its cause on [DATE OF DISCOVERY].

4. COUNT I — STRICT LIABILITY: MANUFACTURING DEFECT

3.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 2.9 as though fully set forth herein.

3.2. Manufacturer is engaged in the business of manufacturing the Product within the meaning of C.R.S. § 13-21-401(1) and is strictly liable for injuries caused by Products that leave its control in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.

3.3. The specific Product that injured Plaintiff deviated from Manufacturer's own design specifications, performance standards, and from other ostensibly identical units of the same product line, in that [DESCRIBE MANUFACTURING DEFECT — e.g., the weld at the [location] was incomplete; the [component] contained inclusions or porosity; tolerances exceeded specification; missing fastener; contaminated batch].

3.4. The manufacturing defect existed at the time the Product left Manufacturer's control and reached Plaintiff without substantial change.

3.5. The manufacturing defect rendered the Product unreasonably dangerous and was a direct and proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

5. COUNT II — STRICT LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECT (RISK-UTILITY / CRASHWORTHINESS)

4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 3.5.

4.2. Under Colorado law, a product is defectively designed when, on balance, the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product as designed, applying the risk-utility factors articulated in Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986).

4.3. The Product was defective in design in that, among other things:

• (a) Usefulness vs. risk: the design's utility did not outweigh the risk of injury it posed to ordinary users in foreseeable use;
• (b) Likelihood and severity of harm: the design created a high probability of severe injury of the type Plaintiff suffered;
• (c) Availability of safer alternative design: a technologically and economically feasible safer alternative design existed at the time of manufacture, including [DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVE — e.g., guarded blade, interlock, redundant fastener, energy-absorbing structure, fire-suppressing material], which would have prevented or substantially reduced Plaintiff's injuries without impairing the Product's utility;
• (d) User's ability to avoid danger: the danger was not obvious or avoidable through the exercise of reasonable care;
• (e) User's anticipated awareness: ordinary users would not anticipate the inherent danger of the Product as designed;
• (f) Feasibility of loss-spreading: Manufacturer is in the best position to anticipate, eliminate, and spread the cost of the risk; and
• (g) State of the art: the design did not conform to the state of the art for safe alternatives that were technologically feasible at the time of manufacture.

4.4. Further, and in the alternative, the Product was not crashworthy. Although Manufacturer was aware that [describe foreseeable accident scenario, e.g., rollover, side impact, blade strike, secondary collision] was reasonably foreseeable, the Product's design failed to provide reasonable protection against enhanced injury in such events. Camacho, 741 P.2d at 1247.

4.5. The design defect existed when the Product left Manufacturer's control and was a direct and proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's enhanced injuries and damages.

6. COUNT III — STRICT LIABILITY: FAILURE TO WARN / INADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS

5.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 4.5.

5.2. Manufacturer had a duty to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning dangers inherent in the foreseeable use of the Product that were known, or that should have been known, to Manufacturer in the exercise of reasonable care, and that were not obvious to ordinary users.

5.3. Manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions in that, among other things:

• The Product was sold with [NO WARNING / AN INADEQUATE WARNING] regarding [DESCRIBE HAZARD];
• The placement, conspicuousness, language, and pictograms of the warnings were inadequate to communicate the risk;
• Instructions for safe use, maintenance, and inspection failed to address the foreseeable failure mode at issue;
• Manufacturer failed to communicate post-sale warnings after it learned, or should have learned, of the hazard.

5.4. Adequate warnings would have caused Plaintiff to alter use of the Product or refrain from the conduct that exposed Plaintiff to the hazard, thereby preventing the Incident.

5.5. Manufacturer's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 5.5.

6.2. Each Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, marketing, distribution, sale, and post-sale monitoring of the Product.

6.3. Each Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to use reasonable care in design, including failing to consider and adopt feasible safer alternative designs;
• Failing to use reasonable care in manufacture, including process controls, quality assurance, and inspection;
• Failing to perform reasonable testing under foreseeable use and misuse conditions;
• Failing to provide adequate warnings and instructions;
• Failing to monitor field performance and to issue timely recalls or post-sale warnings after learning of the hazard;
• Marketing the Product in a manner that overstated its safety or understated its risks.

6.4. Each Defendant's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6.5. Plaintiff at all times exercised reasonable care for Plaintiff's own safety and was less than fifty percent (50%) at fault, if at all, for the Incident. See C.R.S. § 13-21-111.

8. COUNT V — BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

7.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 6.5.

7.2. Each Defendant is a "merchant" with respect to goods of the kind under C.R.S. § 4-2-104 and impliedly warranted under C.R.S. § 4-2-314 that the Product was merchantable, fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used, and adequately contained, packaged, and labeled.

7.3. The Product was not merchantable because it was defective in manufacture, design, and warnings as alleged above, and was not fit for its ordinary purpose.

7.4. Defendants' breach of implied warranty was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7.5. Plaintiff has provided notice of breach to the extent required by C.R.S. § 4-2-607, or such notice is excused or has been given by the filing of this Complaint.

9. DAMAGES

8.1. Economic damages: past and future medical, hospital, surgical, rehabilitation, prescription, and assistive-device expenses; past lost earnings; loss of future earning capacity; property damage; and other out-of-pocket losses, in amounts to be proven at trial.

8.2. Noneconomic damages: physical pain and suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience, impairment of quality of life, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life, subject to the statutory caps in C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5 as applicable.

8.3. Physical impairment and disfigurement: as a separate and uncapped category of recoverable damages under Colorado law.

8.4. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest: pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-101 and C.R.S. § 5-12-102.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally where applicable, as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages, including economic, noneconomic, and physical-impairment damages, in amounts to be proven at trial;
• B. Pre-judgment interest from the date the cause of action accrued, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate;
• C. Costs of suit, including expert-witness fees, deposition costs, and other recoverable costs;
• D. Reasonable attorney's fees as permitted by statute or contract;
• E. Leave to amend to assert a claim for exemplary damages under C.R.S. § 13-21-102 upon a prima facie showing; and
• F. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of six (6) (or twelve (12) upon stipulation or order) on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 38 and C.R.S. § 13-71-104.

☐ Six-person jury (default)

☐ Twelve-person jury requested (advise opposing counsel and tender additional fee)

12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add additional parties, claims (including exemplary damages), or theories of liability as discovery may reveal, in accordance with Colo. R. Civ. P. 15.

13. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Colorado Atty. Reg. No. [####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [________________________________]

Email: [________________________________]

14. VERIFICATION

STATE OF COLORADO

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and state that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; and that the same is true to my own knowledge except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public

(My Commission Expires: [__/__/____])

15. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____], I served (or caused to be served) the foregoing COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND upon Defendants by:

☐ Personal service through a process server pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 4;

☐ Service on the registered agent of each corporate Defendant pursuant to C.R.S. § 7-90-704;

☐ E-service via the Colorado Courts E-Filing system on counsel of record (where appearance has been entered);

☐ Other: [________________________________]

addressed as follows:

[SERVICE LIST WITH NAMES AND ADDRESSES]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

16. COLORADO PRACTICE NOTES

• Pleading standard. Colorado is a notice-pleading jurisdiction (Colo. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Plead facts sufficient to give fair notice and to support each element of strict liability, negligence, and warranty.
• Statute of limitations. Two (2) years from accrual under C.R.S. § 13-80-106; the discovery rule applies under C.R.S. § 13-80-108(1).
• Statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-107 imposes a 7-year repose for actions involving "new manufacturing equipment." Most consumer products are not within § 13-80-107, but confirm whether the Product is "manufacturing equipment" before relying on this. Note: C.R.S. § 13-21-403(3) creates a separate rebuttable presumption of non-defect when more than ten (10) years have passed since first sale.
• Modified comparative fault. For the negligence count, C.R.S. § 13-21-111 bars recovery if Plaintiff's fault is "as great as" the combined fault of defendants (50% bar). For strict liability, C.R.S. § 13-21-406 applies a pure comparative-fault reduction (no bar) and excludes § 13-21-111.
• Innocent seller bar. C.R.S. § 13-21-402 prohibits "product liability actions" against nonmanufacturing sellers absent enumerated exceptions (e.g., manufacturer not subject to jurisdiction, manufacturer insolvent). Negligence and warranty claims proceed independently against the retailer.
• Statutory presumptions (C.R.S. § 13-21-403). The defendant may invoke rebuttable presumptions of non-defect for: (i) state-of-the-art conformity, (ii) compliance with government code/regulation, and (iii) product first sold more than ten (10) years before suit. Plead facts (in the complaint and in expert disclosures) that anticipate and rebut each.
• Design-defect test. Risk-utility balancing under Camacho v. Honda, 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987). The consumer-expectation test does not govern in Colorado; obviousness of danger is not a complete defense.
• Crashworthiness. Colorado recognizes the crashworthiness/enhanced-injury doctrine. Plead the foreseeable secondary-impact scenario and the alternative design that would have reduced injury severity.
• Failure to warn. Adequacy assessed by the Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath factors. The learned-intermediary doctrine applies in prescription-drug and certain medical-device cases.
• Punitive damages. May not be pled in the original complaint (C.R.S. § 13-21-102(1.5)(a)). Move to amend after a prima facie showing of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct; cap is generally 1× compensatory (may be increased to 3× under § 13-21-102(3)).
• Noneconomic damages cap. C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5 caps noneconomic damages (currently adjusted by statute; verify the present cap by date of injury). Physical impairment and disfigurement are separate, uncapped categories.
• Joint and several liability. Generally abolished by C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5 (several liability), with carve-outs for parties acting in concert and certain pollution claims. Designation of nonparties at fault is required within 90 days after the case is at issue (§ 13-21-111.5(3)(b)).
• Service. Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(e)–(f); corporate service per C.R.S. § 7-90-704; secretary of state as agent of last resort for entities without a registered agent.
• Venue. Colo. R. Civ. P. 98(c) — where tort occurred or where defendant resides / has principal place of business.
• E-filing. Colorado Courts E-Filing (CCEF) is mandatory for represented parties; see C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26.

17. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• C.R.S. Title 13, Article 21, Part 4 (Product Liability — General Provisions) — https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes
• C.R.S. § 13-21-401 (Definitions) — https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-401
• C.R.S. § 13-21-402 (Innocent seller) — https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-402
• C.R.S. § 13-21-403 (Presumptions) — https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-21-403
• C.R.S. § 13-21-406 (Comparative fault — products) — https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-13-courts-and-court-procedure/co-rev-st-sect-13-21-406.html
• C.R.S. § 13-21-111 (Modified comparative negligence) — https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-13/damages-and-limitations-on-actions/article-21/part-1/section-13-21-111/
• C.R.S. § 13-80-106 (Two-year SOL — products) — https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-80-106
• C.R.S. § 13-80-107 (Statute of repose — new manufacturing equipment) — https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_13-80-107
• 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)
• Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 196 Colo. 162, 583 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1978)
• Colorado Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 14 (Product Liability) — https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/Chapter%2014_2.pdf
• Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure — https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/

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. Statutes, cases, court rules, and damages caps change frequently; verify all authorities and dollar caps before use.