v. Colorado Cab Co
2020 CO 55 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a person to qualify as a rescuer under the rescue doctrine, they must satisfy a three-pronged test: they must have (1) intended to aid or rescue a person whom they (2) reasonably believed was in imminent peril, and (3) acted in such a way that could have reasonably succeeded or did succeed in preventing or alleviating such peril.
Facts:
- A driver for Colorado Cab Company LLC picked up an intoxicated passenger, Curt Glinton, and his friend.
- After reaching their destination, Glinton became upset about the fare, started yelling at the driver, and then grabbed and punched the driver from behind.
- Jose Garcia, who had called a cab nearby, heard the driver screaming for help and ran to the cab.
- Garcia approached the cab, stuck his head through the open driver's-side door, and told Glinton to stop the assault.
- Glinton shifted his aggression to Garcia, allowing the driver to exit the vehicle.
- Glinton then exited the cab and began throwing punches at Garcia, who was subsequently hit over the head and fell to the ground.
- Glinton entered the driver's seat of the still-running cab and drove, hitting the still-down Garcia once, then backed up and ran him over again, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Garcia filed a negligence action against Colorado Cab Company LLC in state trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found for Garcia, awarding him $1.6 million in damages and allocating 45% of the fault to Colorado Cab, 55% to Glinton, and 0% to Garcia.
- Colorado Cab moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing it did not owe a duty to Garcia, which the trial court denied.
- Colorado Cab appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- A division of the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Garcia did not qualify as a rescuer because he did not take “concrete physical action.”
- Garcia petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for review, which granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the rescue doctrine require a person to exert some bodily movement of a specific degree or nature to qualify as a rescuer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boatright
No, the rescue doctrine does not require a person to exert some bodily movement of a specific degree or nature to qualify as a rescuer. The court found that a stringent physicality requirement unduly narrows the rescue doctrine and fails to account for a person's purpose, the reasonableness of their belief of peril, and the utility of their action. The doctrine's purpose is to acknowledge the human instinct to help and prevent negligent actors from escaping liability to rescuers, and requiring physical intervention could encourage escalation of violence or discourage intervention altogether. Instead, the court established a three-pronged test: a rescuer must (1) intend to aid or rescue a person whom they (2) reasonably believed was in imminent peril, and (3) acted in a way that could reasonably succeed or did succeed in preventing or alleviating such peril. Applying this test, Garcia intended to rescue the driver by running to the cab and yelling at Glinton to stop, reasonably believed the driver was in imminent peril based on the screams and observed attack, and succeeded in preventing the driver's peril by distracting Glinton and allowing the driver to escape. Therefore, Garcia qualified as a rescuer.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the application of the rescue doctrine in Colorado, moving beyond a narrow interpretation that required physical intervention. By establishing a clear three-pronged test, the court provides a comprehensive framework for determining rescuer status, emphasizing intent, reasonable belief of peril, and the utility of the action rather than the specific nature or degree of physical movement. This ruling encourages altruistic behavior without necessitating direct physical confrontation, potentially leading to more consistent application of the doctrine in future negligence cases involving bystander intervention.
