A Fault Accusation Is Only the Beginning of Colorado’s Allocation Analysis
Being accused of partial fault does not end a Colorado Springs matter or establish a final percentage. First classify the claim and identify every relevant person or nonparty; next separate conduct that caused the event from conduct that affected the injury; then compare physical and documentary evidence with accounts and admissions. Only after that triage can Colorado’s allocation rule be applied responsibly.
Apply the Colorado Threshold to the Correct Comparison
C.R.S. § 13-21-111 prevents recovery if the claimant’s negligence meets or exceeds the negligence allocated to the defendant being pursued. A lower claimant share proportionally decreases damages. Multiple defendants, designated nonparties, pro rata liability, intentional conduct, and special statutory claims require additional analysis.
An injury claim lawyer should not assign a percentage from a citation, insurer letter, apology, or isolated sentence. The legal comparison and the actors included must be established from the actual claim and evidence.
Reconstruct Conduct From Independent Sources
Preserve photographs, video, measurements, roadway or property conditions, damaged objects, event data, policies or safety rules, witness vantage points, and a timed sequence. Evaluate what each participant knew, could see, controlled, and reasonably could have done. An expert may be useful for a genuinely technical reconstruction, not as a substitute for missing basic facts.
A bodily injury claim also needs medical causation. Conduct that contributed to the event is not automatically the same as a preexisting condition or later action affecting damages, treatment, or mitigation. Keep those issues in separate rows.
Preserve Context Before Responding to an Accusation
Save the entire conversation, recording, form, or report containing an alleged admission. Note the question asked, speaker, timing, purpose, and available facts at that moment. Then build a responsibility table with conduct, supporting source, contrary source, causal role, person involved, and unresolved gap. Separate an expression of concern from a factual statement and test both against independent sources. Revisit the table when new video, measurements, testimony, or expert analysis arrives. Note which percentage arguments depend on a disputed legal classification rather than a factual disagreement. Preserve alternate reconstructions until the evidence resolves them. Date every revision. Prioritize perishable evidence, correct factual errors with support, and obtain claim-specific review without assuming either zero fault or a predetermined bar. At S&S Law, we help Colorado Springs clients with comparative fault.