Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/,. <br /> <br />negligent in causing plaintiff's damages <br />i 1 <br />It set plaintiff's <br />damages at $400,000 and apportioned the negligence 757 to <br />defendant and 257 to plaintiff. <br />I <br />i <br />Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in reducing the <br />damage award by the percentage of plaintiff's contributory <br />negligence. Plaintiff argues that the principles of <br />comparative negligence should not apply when the conduct of one <br />party constitutes simple negligence and the actions of the <br />other involve willful and reckless negligence. We disagree. <br />The intent of the parties as expressed by their contract <br />exempts the defendant from liability for compensatory damages <br />0 <br />for acts of simple negligence; however, defendant is liable for <br />acts of willful or gross negligence. The contract is silent as <br />to the effect of plaintiff's negligence, if any. We conclude <br />that the court properly applied the Colorado comparative <br />negligence statute to the standards of liability contracted by <br />the parties. <br />The comparative negligence statute applies to all actions <br />"to recover damages for negligence." Section 13-21-111(1), <br />C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A). The function of the statute is to <br />compare the negligence of the parties who cause the loss or <br />injury and, if the plaintiff's negligence does not equal or <br />exceed that of the defendant, to assess liability for damages <br />in proportion to the respective fault of the parties. In our <br /> <br />-2- <br />