Colorado Civil Jury Instructions: Rule 51.1, Deadlines, and Verdict Forms

The Colorado civil jury instructions, known as CJI-Civ, are the pattern instructions that trial judges must give to juries in civil cases whenever a pattern instruction fits the issue. Rule 51.1 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to “use such instructions as are contained in Colorado Jury Instructions (CJI) as are applicable to the evidence and the prevailing law.”¹ The full set is published for free on the Colorado Judicial Branch website, and the Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions updates it regularly to track changes in statutes and case law.²

What the Instructions Cover

CJI-Civ is organized into numbered chapters, each targeting a distinct area of civil law. The chapters most commonly used include:

Chapter 6: Damages for injuries to persons or property
Chapter 9: Negligence (general concepts)
Chapter 10: Wrongful death
Chapter 12: Premises liability
Chapter 15: Professional liability
Chapter 30: Contracts

The full collection spans dozens of topics, from general trial concepts like witness credibility and burden of proof through specialized areas such as product liability and governmental immunity.² Some chapters map directly onto Colorado statutes; the premises liability instructions in Chapter 12, for example, track the duties a landowner owes under the state’s premises liability statute.³

The current edition is available at no cost on the Judicial Branch website, with each chapter downloadable in both Word and PDF formats.² The Word versions are useful for drafting proposed instructions because the bracketed placeholders can be filled in directly. Confirm you are working from the most recent edition. Outdated instructions may reference repealed statutes or superseded standards.

Why Rule 51.1 Makes CJI Mandatory

Rule 51.1 is not a suggestion. When a CJI instruction covers the issue, the trial court must use it. The rule allows the court to depart only in two situations: when no pattern instruction exists on the subject, or when the factual circumstances or a change in the law make the existing instruction inappropriate. Even then, the court should model its custom instruction on the CJI format as closely as possible.¹

This gives litigants real leverage. A party proposing a CJI instruction on a relevant issue has strong footing because the judge cannot simply swap in homegrown language. A party asking the court to deviate from CJI carries the burden of showing why the pattern instruction does not fit.

Drafting a Proposed Instruction

Each proposed instruction starts with a standard case caption and references the specific CJI chapter and instruction number. A plaintiff raising a negligence claim, for instance, would cite Instruction 9:1 for the basic elements of liability.

The model instructions contain bracketed placeholders throughout. Those brackets mark the spots where drafters insert case-specific details: party names, relevant dates, locations from the testimony, or the particular type of conduct at issue. Filling the brackets correctly is where most of the work actually happens. A bracket left empty or filled with the wrong party’s name can confuse the jury or misstate the law.

Every instruction comes with two reference sections that drafters need to read before filing. The “Notes on Use” section explains when the instruction is appropriate and identifies the factual triggers that make it relevant. The “Source and Authority” section cites the statutes and case law behind it. Reviewing both sections is how you confirm that the evidence actually supports giving the instruction.

Filing Deadlines and the Charging Conference

Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d) requires the parties to exchange, confer on, and file their proposed jury instructions and verdict forms no later than three days before trial, unless the court sets a different deadline.⁴ Many judges set an earlier deadline through a case management order, so the scheduling order is the first thing to check.

Before the jury hears the final instructions, the court holds an instruction conference, sometimes called a charging conference. The judge and counsel go through each proposed instruction, resolve disagreements about wording and legal accuracy, and settle the final set. Rule 51 requires the judge to provide the finalized instructions to counsel with enough time before they are read aloud for the parties to raise any remaining objections.⁵ After closing arguments, the judge reads the final instructions aloud and the jurors take a written copy into deliberations.

Preliminary and Supplemental Instructions

Jurors are not instructed only at the end of the case. Chapter 1 of the CJI contains instructions given before or during trial. Preliminary instructions explain the jurors’ duties, describe the general nature of the case, and give the framework they will use to evaluate the evidence as it comes in.

If the jury sends a question out during deliberations, Rule 51(c) authorizes the court to recall the jurors and “give them further instructions, or correct or withdraw any erroneous instruction,” as long as the parties receive notice and an opportunity to object.⁵ A supplemental instruction should address the specific point the jury is stuck on, and the court should remind the jury to read it alongside everything they already received.

Verdict Forms and Comparative Fault

Jury instructions work in tandem with the verdict form. Chapter 4 of the CJI covers general verdicts, special verdicts, and a unified verdict form the committee developed to standardize the process. When the court uses a special verdict, which asks the jury to answer specific factual questions, the accompanying instructions must define every legal term used in those questions.⁶ Misalignment between the instructions and the verdict form is a common source of post-trial problems. If the instructions describe three elements of a claim but the verdict form only asks about two, the jury cannot apply the law correctly.

Colorado follows a modified comparative fault system. The jury allocates fault as a percentage of 100 percent among the plaintiff, the defendants, and any designated nonparties. If the plaintiff’s share is 50 percent or more, the plaintiff recovers nothing. The CJI negligence instructions build this threshold directly into the language the jury hears. One asymmetry catches people off guard: the jury is told the effect of its finding on the plaintiff’s share, but not the effect of its allocation among multiple defendants. The legislature required that gap to prevent the jury from adjusting percentages to engineer a particular financial outcome among defendants.⁷

Damages and the Noneconomic Cap

CJI addresses both economic damages (medical bills, lost income, repair costs) and noneconomic damages (pain, suffering, impairment of quality of life). Colorado caps noneconomic damages in most civil cases. The baseline cap is $250,000, rising to $500,000 if the court finds clear and convincing evidence justifying a higher award, with inflation adjustments on a regular schedule. The jury never learns the cap. The statute prohibits disclosing it; the court applies the cap after the verdict comes in but before entering judgment. A jury might award $800,000 in noneconomic damages, and the court will reduce that figure to the statutory maximum in the final judgment.

Preserving Objections and Appellate Review

Rule 51(b) is unforgiving. Every objection to a jury instruction must be raised before the instructions are given to the jury. If a party stays silent at the instruction conference and complains on appeal, the appellate court will not consider the argument unless the error rises to plain error.⁵ To preserve an objection, state the specific ground on the record. “We object to Instruction 12” is not enough. Identify what is wrong with the instruction and what the correct statement of the law should be. The appellate court will consider only the grounds actually stated at trial. The same principle governs an instruction the court refuses to give: request it, get a ruling, and object on the record.

Colorado appellate courts review jury instructions on two levels. Whether the instructions as a whole correctly stated the law is reviewed de novo. Whether the trial court should have given or declined a particular instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.⁸

When a preserved error is found, the appellate court asks whether it actually affected the outcome. An error that did not substantially influence the verdict or the fairness of the proceedings is harmless, and the verdict stands. When an instruction omits or misdescribes an element of a claim, the review is more demanding: the court will reverse unless it is confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the mistake did not contribute to the verdict.⁸ Unpreserved errors face plain error review, which requires showing the error was both obvious and substantial, meaning it contradicted a clear statutory command or a well-settled legal principle. That bar fails far more often than it succeeds, which is why the charging conference is the moment to raise every objection you have.

1
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Relating to Jury Instructions
2
Colorado Judicial Branch. Pattern Civil Jury Instructions Committee
3
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Civil Jury Instructions – Chapter 12 Premises Liability
4
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure
5
Colorado General Assembly. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure
6
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Civil Jury Instructions – Chapter 4 Jury Deliberations and Verdict Forms
7
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Civil Jury Instructions – Chapter 9 Negligence General Concepts
8
Colorado Judicial Branch. Colorado Appellate Opinion – Instructional Error Standards