v. Colorado Cab Co, 2020 CO 55

A Colorado Cab passenger (Glinton) assaulted the cab driver; bystander Jose Garcia ran to the cab after hearing the driver scream for help, yelled at Glinton through the open driver-side door, and was then attacked and later run over by Glinton driving the cab, suffering severe injuries.
Garcia sued Colorado Cab for negligence, alleging the company knew of prior passenger attacks (44 in three years) and failed to install protective measures (partitions/cameras).
At trial the jury awarded Garcia $1.6 million, allocating 45% fault to Colorado Cab, 55% to Glinton, and 0% to Garcia; the trial court denied Colorado Cab’s JNOV motion, finding Garcia was a rescuer and thus within the company’s duty if the company owed a duty to the driver.
A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding a rescuer must perform a concrete physical action (bodily movement) and that Garcia’s mere approach and verbal command did not suffice.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the court of appeals’ physicality requirement was unduly narrow, adopted a three-pronged rescuer test, concluded Garcia satisfied that test, and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rescue doctrine requires physical bodily intervention to qualify as a rescuer	Garcia: rescue status can be based on nonphysical efforts if aimed at aiding someone in imminent peril	Colorado Cab: a rescuer must take concrete physical action (bodily movement/effort) to qualify	Held: No bright-line physicality requirement; adopted three-pronged test (intent to aid, reasonable belief of imminent peril, action that could reasonably succeed)
Whether Colorado Cab owed a duty to Garcia derivatively as a rescuer (if it owed a duty to the driver)	Garcia: if Cab owed driver a duty, foreseeability of rescuers creates derivative duty to rescuers	Colorado Cab: owes no duty to prevent intentional criminal acts; Garcia was at least partly responsible (comparative negligence)	Held: Court concluded Garcia qualified as a rescuer, so if Cab owed duty to driver it owed a duty to Garcia; remanded for the court of appeals to address remaining duty and fault issues
Whether the trial court erred in instructing on foreseeability and comparative negligence	Garcia: instructions properly allowed jury to consider foreseeability and whether Garcia acted reasonably	Colorado Cab: challenged liability for third-party criminal acts and argued Garcia was comparatively negligent	Held: Supreme Court did not resolve comparative negligence or all foreseeability questions; remanded for further consideration after rescuers issue resolved

Wagner v. Int’l Ry. Co., 133 N.E. 437 (N.Y. 1921) (foundational articulation of rescue doctrine: danger invites rescue and wrongdoer is accountable for injuries to rescuer)
Maloney v. Jussel, 241 P.2d 862 (Colo. 1952) (no rescuer status where victim was not in imminent peril)
Connelly v. Redman Dev. Corp., 533 P.2d 53 (Colo. App. 1975) (investigatory response to a cry does not establish rescuer status absent imminent peril)
Barnes v. Geiger, 446 N.E.2d 78 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (rescuer’s purpose must be more than investigatory; must assert a mission of assistance)
Lambert v. Parrish, 492 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. 1986) (court rejecting nonphysical attempts; held rescuer must undertake physical activity—cited by Colorado Court of Appeals but disapproved here)
Schwartzman v. Del. Coach Co., 264 A.2d 519 (Del. Super. Ct. 1970) (mere verbal warning is insufficient to establish rescuer status)
Westin Operator, LLC v. Groh, 347 P.3d 606 (Colo. 2015) (duty is a question of law; cited regarding standard of review)
Hicks v. Londre, 125 P.3d 452 (Colo. 2005) (where facts are undisputed, legal effect is reviewed de novo)