Bedee v. American Medical Response of Colorado
2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1403
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Karen Bedee was a passenger in an AMR ambulance returning from a nonemergency hospital transfer when the vehicle hit unmarked dips; she claimed a lower-back injury from being jostled.
- Bedee rode in the rear compartment, wore a lap belt, and testified the driver looked at or used a device and did not slow for the dips.
- AMR introduced onboard data showing normal speeds, low G-forces, no hard accelerations/decelerations, and no use of lights/sirens on the return trip.
- At trial Bedee tendered a jury instruction that ambulance drivers must exercise the "highest possible degree of care" (Lewis standard); the court instead gave ordinary negligence/reasonable-care instructions.
- The jury found AMR not negligent and not the cause of Bedee’s injuries; Bedee appealed, arguing the court erred by rejecting the highest-degree-of-care instruction and by not treating the ambulance as a common carrier.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the facts did not warrant a higher standard and that Colorado statutes exclude ambulances from the statutory definition of common carrier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ambulance driver must be held to the highest degree of care (Lewis test) | Lewis applies because passengers surrender freedom and are under operator control; highest care instruction required | Ordinary reasonable-care standard applies; facts show no increased risk justifying Lewis | Court: Lewis inapplicable here — return trip nonemergency, normal speeds, seatbelt use; no heightened risk; ordinary negligence instruction proper |
| Whether an ambulance is a common carrier (imposing highest care) | Ambulance is a commercial transport and should be treated as a common carrier for tort duty | Title 40 expressly excludes ambulances from the statutory definition of common carrier; no judicial exception | Court: statutory exclusion controls; ambulances are not common carriers under Colorado law; highest-degree rule not imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Buckskin Joe's, 396 P.2d 933 (Colo. 1964) (articulates test for when passengers surrender control and highest degree of care applies)
- Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998) (applies Lewis factors to ski-lift context; higher risk justifies higher duty)
- Imperial Distrib. Servs., Inc. v. Forrest, 741 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1987) (reasonable care varies with degree of risk; highest-degree instruction limited to clear high-risk activities)
- United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1992) (duty/standard of care defined by foreseeability and reasonableness)
- Hesse v. McClintic, 176 P.3d 759 (Colo. 2008) (drivers owe ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances)
- Publix Cab Co. v. Fessler, 335 P.2d 865 (Colo. 1959) (recognizes common-carrier doctrine imposing highest duty)