§ 1Three legal theories behind a product claim
A Colorado product liability action is any action brought against a manufacturer or seller for injury caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation, preparation, assembly, testing, packaging, labeling or sale of a product, as C.R.S. 13-21-401 defines it. Within that umbrella, claims are usually pleaded on one or more of three theories.
| Theory | Core question | Practical note |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability | Was the product defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant's hands? | Carelessness does not have to be proved; the focus is the product, not the conduct. |
| Negligence | Did the manufacturer or seller fail to use reasonable care in design, testing, manufacture or warnings? | Can reach sellers and others that the strict liability rules protect. |
| Breach of warranty | Did the product fail a promise, express or implied, about its quality or fitness? | Rooted in Colorado's version of the Uniform Commercial Code; has its own technical requirements. |
Strict liability is the theory most people mean when they talk about product cases. Colorado courts adopted the rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A, and the legislature later layered the Product Liability Act's statutory limits on top of it.
§ 2Three kinds of defect, three kinds of proof
Manufacturing defects
The design is sound, but one unit or one batch departed from it: a weak weld, a contaminated lot, a casting with an internal void. Proof often compares the failed unit with the specification and with good units off the same line. These cases can be the most straightforward, provided the product survives intact.
Design defects
Every unit is built as intended and the intended design is the problem. Colorado courts generally analyze design defects through a risk-benefit lens, weighing the product's usefulness, the likelihood and seriousness of injury, whether a safer design was feasible, whether the danger could be removed without ruining the product, and whether users could avoid it with ordinary care. Expert engineers are almost always involved, and so are the manufacturer's own testing and design records.
Warning and instruction defects
A product can be well made and well designed and still be defective if it carries a non-obvious danger without an adequate warning. The questions are whether a warning was needed, whether the one given was clear and prominent enough, and whether a proper warning would have changed what the user did.
§ 3Compare the defect types
Which defect theory sounds closest?
ComparisonMany real cases plead more than one defect theory. This is a vocabulary aid, not an evaluation.
§ 4Who can be named: the innocent seller rule
Colorado shields most sellers from strict liability. Under C.R.S. 13-21-402, a strict liability product action cannot be brought against a seller unless the seller is also the manufacturer. The statute's definition of manufacturer pulls in some sellers anyway: one that had actual knowledge of the defect, one that created and gave the manufacturer specifications relevant to the alleged defect, or one with significant ownership ties to the manufacturer. Putting a private label on a product does not, by itself, turn a seller into a manufacturer.
Out-of-state makersC.R.S. 13-21-402(2) If the manufacturer is beyond the reach of Colorado courts, the principal distributor or seller here can be treated as the manufacturer.
There is a safety valve. If the manufacturer is not subject to the jurisdiction of Colorado courts, the principal distributor or seller over whom the court does have jurisdiction is treated as the manufacturer. With so many products now built abroad and sold online, figuring out who the "manufacturer" is for a particular item can take real investigation: importer records, online marketplace listings, and the markings on the product itself.
§ 5Presumptions and defenses that shape these cases
C.R.S. 13-21-403 gives defendants several rebuttable presumptions. Rebuttable means the injured person can overcome them with evidence, but they shift the starting point.
- Code compliance: a product that complied, before sale, with an applicable code, standard or regulation adopted by the United States or Colorado is presumed not defective, and its maker and seller are presumed not negligent.
- State of the art: a similar presumption applies where the product conformed to the state of the art when it was first sold.
- Ten years: ten years after a product was first sold for use or consumption, it is presumed not defective and its maker and seller are presumed not negligent.
Common defenses include unforeseeable misuse, alteration of the product after it left the defendant's control, and the injured person's own fault. Colorado's product liability statute provides for comparing fault in these actions (C.R.S. 13-21-406), and how that comparison works can differ from an ordinary negligence claim, so ask how it applies to the theories in your case.
The repaired product
After a space heater sparks and burns someone, a family member helpfully replaces the cord and keeps using it. Now the most important piece of evidence has been altered, and the defense can argue the alteration, not a defect, explains the failure. It happens often. Bag the product, the cord, and any fragments, and leave them alone.
§ 6Preserving the product and the paper trail
- the product still existsKeep it unrepaired, unwashed and stored safely, with every fragment.
- the manufacturer asks you to send it inGet legal advice first; agree on testing protocols before anyone opens it.
- you bought it onlineScreenshot the listing, the seller name and the order confirmation now; listings disappear.
- there is a recallSave the notice and note whether your model and lot number are covered.
Deadlines matter here as much as anywhere. Product liability actions generally must be filed within two years under C.R.S. 13-80-106, and a separate statute limits actions over manufacturing equipment. See the Colorado statute of limitations overview for how accrual and the discovery rule work, and the damage caps guide for what can be recovered.
The bottom line
Name the defect type, identify the true manufacturer, and keep the product exactly as it was. Expect the defense to raise the ten-year and code-compliance presumptions and to argue misuse or alteration.
Colorado product liability questions
Can I sue the store that sold me a defective product in Colorado?
Usually not on a strict liability theory. C.R.S. 13-21-402 bars strict liability product claims against a seller unless the seller is also the manufacturer. If the manufacturer is not subject to the jurisdiction of Colorado courts, the principal distributor or seller that is can be treated as the manufacturer. Sellers can still face other claims, such as negligence or breach of warranty, depending on the facts.
How long do I have to file a product liability claim?
Product liability actions generally must be brought within two years under C.R.S. 13-80-106. Separately, C.R.S. 13-21-403(3) creates a rebuttable presumption that a product was not defective if the injury happened more than ten years after the product was first sold for use or consumption.
Should I keep the product that hurt me?
Yes. Keep it, unrepaired, along with packaging, manuals, receipts and any broken pieces. Do not send it to the manufacturer for "inspection" without advice, because the product itself is often the central evidence, and both sides usually want their experts to examine it under agreed conditions.
What if the product was recalled?
A recall can be useful evidence that a defect existed, but it is not automatic proof that the defect caused your injury. You still have to connect the recalled defect to what happened. Recall notices from agencies such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission or NHTSA are worth saving.
Does it matter if I used the product the wrong way?
It can. Misuse that the manufacturer could not reasonably foresee is a defense, and comparative fault principles apply in product cases under C.R.S. 13-21-406. Foreseeable misuse is different: manufacturers are generally expected to design and warn with predictable mistakes in mind.
No questions match that filter.
Last reviewed November 2026. Colorado statutes are amended often. Check the current Colorado Revised Statutes, or ask a licensed Colorado attorney, before relying on any figure or deadline here.