2019 COA 3
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Late at night taxi driver Ali Yusuf picked up two intoxicated passengers, including Curt Glinton; an argument escalated and Glinton assaulted Yusuf outside the cab.
- Jose Garcia, who had earlier called for a cab and later saw Yusuf’s taxi pass, followed it several blocks, observed the altercation, approached, and verbally told the men to stop.
- After stepping out of the cab, Glinton attacked Garcia, then drove the taxi toward Garcia and Yusuf, running over and dragging Garcia, causing severe injuries.
- Garcia sued Colorado Cab Company (his claims against Yusuf were dropped at trial), alleging negligence for failure to provide safety measures (e.g., partitions, cameras) and unjust enrichment; Colorado Cab moved for judgment arguing no duty to Garcia and lack of proximate cause.
- The district court denied summary judgment and directed verdict motions, a jury awarded Garcia damages, and the trial court relied on a common-carrier/passenger relationship and the rescue doctrine to find a duty; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado Cab owed Garcia a common-carrier/passenger duty | Garcia argued a duty akin to a carrier/passenger existed because he had called a cab and encountered the taxi | Colorado Cab argued Garcia was neither a passenger nor a prospective passenger of Yusuf’s cab and thus no special relationship existed | Court held no common-carrier/passenger relationship as a matter of law; no duty |
| Whether the rescue doctrine extends liability to Garcia as a rescuer | Garcia contended he was a rescuer who intervened to assist Yusuf, extending Colorado Cab’s duty to him | Colorado Cab argued the rescue doctrine requires physical intervention and Garcia only provided verbal admonitions | Court held Garcia was not a rescuer—he didn’t physically intervene—so the rescue doctrine did not apply |
| Whether any duty existed to impose liability for nonfeasance (failure to install safety devices) | Garcia argued the company’s omission foreseeably created danger to third parties and rescuers | Colorado Cab argued nonfeasance requires a special relationship to impose a duty; none existed here | Court held nonfeasance without a special relationship cannot create a duty; no duty existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Publix Cab Co. v. Fessler, 335 P.2d 865 (Colo. 1959) (discusses heightened duty of care owed by carrier to passenger)
- Maloney v. Jussel, 241 P.2d 862 (Colo. 1952) (rescuer must act to avert imminent peril; examples of qualifying rescues)
- Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989) (special-relationship requirement for imposing a duty for nonfeasance)
- Davenport v. Community Corrections of Pikes Peak Region, Inc., 962 P.2d 963 (Colo. 1998) (distinguishing nonfeasance and misfeasance; duty requires special relationship)
- Barnes v. Geiger, 446 N.E.2d 78 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (rescue doctrine requires active physical intervention; mere presence or bystanding insufficient)