After over 25 years of fighting for injury victims in Colorado, one of the most common questions I hear is: “Can I still recover damages if I was partially at fault for the crash?”
The answer is: Yes—if you were less than 50% at fault. But here’s where it gets tricky, and where having the right lawyer on your side can make all the difference.
Colorado uses a “modified comparative fault” standard to determine financial recovery in personal injury cases. This rule allows you to recover damages even if you were partially responsible for the accident—as long as your share of fault is less than 50%.
However, your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault.
For example: If a jury finds you were 20% at fault, and your total damages were $100,000, you would still recover $80,000.
If you’re 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing.
This system tries to balance fairness—holding each party accountable for their role—while still allowing injured people to seek justice.
Insurance companies love this rule—because they use it against you. Their goal is often to inflate your percentage of fault just enough to knock you out of eligibility, or to drastically reduce what they owe. That’s why I always conduct independent investigations—we don’t take the police report or the insurer’s word as gospel.
Here are three real-world examples from Colorado crashes that illustrate how modified comparative fault can affect a claim:
Scenario: A biker is going 10 mph over the speed limit on a city street. A car turns left across traffic and hits the motorcycle.
Fault Analysis: The driver failed to yield, which is a major violation. But the biker’s speed may have reduced their ability to stop.
Result: The rider may be found 20–30% at fault. If their damages are $200,000, they could still recover $140,000–$160,000.
Our Take: We fight to minimize the rider’s fault, using expert witnesses to show reaction times, visibility, and proper stopping distances. Speed alone shouldn’t void a claim.
Scenario: A pedestrian crosses a busy intersection a few seconds after the “Don’t Walk” sign starts flashing. A distracted driver, who was also speeding, hits them.
Fault Analysis: The pedestrian didn’t have the right of way. But the driver was also negligent—speeding and not watching the crosswalk.
Result: The pedestrian may be found 40% at fault. With $300,000 in damages, they could still recover $180,000.
Our Take: Just because someone made a mistake doesn’t mean they deserve zero justice. We build strong evidence to show the greater fault lies with the driver.
Scenario: A driver slams on their brakes suddenly to avoid hitting a squirrel. The car behind them rear-ends them.
Fault Analysis: In Colorado, rear drivers are generally presumed at fault. But if the stop was deemed unsafe or unnecessary, the front driver may share blame.
Result: If the rear driver is found 60% at fault and the front driver 40%, the front driver can still recover—while the rear driver gets nothing.
Our Take: These cases are all about investigating context—was it a normal, safe stop? Or was it erratic and dangerous? Don’t assume you’re automatically at fault just because you hit someone from behind.
Even if you think you were partially at fault, never assume you don’t have a case. I’ve seen many people walk away from strong claims because they didn’t understand this law—or because an insurance adjuster told them they had no right to recover. That’s not just wrong, it’s predatory.
At The O’Sullivan Law Firm, we work with accident reconstructionists, investigators, and expert witnesses to challenge biased reports and present the full story of your crash.
Call or Text us at 303-388-5304
You won’t be passed off to a paralegal. A lawyer will walk through your case with you—honestly and thoroughly. And we won’t let anyone, especially an insurance company, shortchange your recovery just because you weren’t perfect in the moment.
