This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act".
Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 808, § 1, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Immunity to Direct Action: Is it a Defense to a Contribution Claim?", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 151 (1980). For article, "Conflicts in Settlement of Personal Injury Cases", see 11 Colo. Law. 399 (1982). For article, "Application of Comparative Negligence and Contribution Statutes to Third-Party Defendants", see 13 Colo. Law. 626 (1984). For article, "Set-Off Under the Contribution and Collateral Source Statutes", see 21 Colo. Law. 1421 (1992).
Traditional theories of loss allocation in tort altered. The general assembly has altered traditional theories of loss allocation in tort with the passage of this act and with the introduction of a comparative negligence scheme into Colorado law, § 13-21-111. Pub. Serv. Co. v. District Court, 638 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1981).
Act remedies harsh common-law rule. This act is designed to remedy a harsh common-law rule. Changing rules of tort liability have expanded the number of parties who can be considered joint tortfeasors, while the rule of joint and several liability left the plaintiff with control over who would ultimately bear the losses. The contribution act remedied this situation by permitting the shifting of losses equitably among those tortfeasors who caused the damages. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 662 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1983).
Employer covered under workmen's compensation not liable for contribution. Because the workmen's compensation act immunizes an employer from tort liability to a covered employee, the employer is not "jointly liable in tort" and therefore contribution is barred. Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 542 F. Supp. 662 (D. Colo. 1982).
Emphasis on intent to define scope of general releases effectuates the purpose of this article in that it retains the liability of joint tortfeasors unless the releaser intended to release all claims. Neves v. Potter, 769 P.2d 1047 (Colo. 1989).
Applied in Martinez v. Stefanich, 195 Colo. 341, 577 P.2d 1099 (1978); Hillman v. Bray Lines, 41 Colo. App. 493, 591 P.2d 1332 (1978); Sager v. City of Woodland Park, 543 F. Supp. 282 (D. Colo. 1982).