Garcia v. Colo. Cab Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 17CA1381
• Citation: 503 P.3d 867,2021 COA 129
• Parties: Jose GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO CAB COMPANY LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a Denver Yellow Cab, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

503 P.3d 867

2021 COA 129

Jose GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.COLORADO CAB COMPANY LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a Denver Yellow Cab, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals No. 17CA1381

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VII.

Prior Opinion Announced on January 10, 2019, Reversed in 19SC116

Announced October 28, 2021

Rehearing Denied November 18, 2021

Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, Daniel S. Foster, Laura M. Martinez, Chip G. Schoneberger, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

White and Steele, PC, John M. Lebsack, Keith R. Olivera, E. Catlynne Shadakofsky, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

Opinion by JUDGE J. JONES

¶ 1 Jose Garcia sued Colorado Cab Company LLC for negligence and unjust enrichment when Curt Glinton, who had been a passenger in one of Colorado Cab's taxis, assaulted him, first by hitting him while they were standing outside the cab and then by running him over with the cab, which Glinton had stolen.

¶ 2 Colorado Cab first challenged whether it owed a duty to Garcia. The district court ruled that it did on three bases: (1) Colorado Cab committed an act of misfeasance (the driver's calling out for help) that increased the risk of harm to Garcia; (2) there was a common carrier/passenger relationship between them; and (3) Garcia was a "rescuer," which meant that the duty Colorado Cab owed to its driver (Ali Yusuf) to protect him from assaults by passengers extended to Garcia.

¶ 3 Garcia argued to the jury that Colorado Cab breached the duty of care by failing to install partitions separating the front and back seats and interior cameras in its cabs. After Colorado Cab unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict on the issues of duty and causation, the jury found that Colorado Cab breached its duty of care and awarded Garcia $1,605,000 in damages. (The jury allocated 45% of the fault to Colorado Cab and 55% to Glinton.)

¶ 4 Later, the court held a hearing on Garcia's unjust enrichment claim and dismissed it. (The court said it "finds against [Garcia] on his unjust enrichment claim.")

¶ 5 Colorado Cab filed post-verdict motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to reduce the verdict by the amount Medicaid had paid toward Garcia's medical bills. The district court denied both motions.

¶ 6 Colorado Cab appealed. Garcia cross-appealed the district court's judgment on his unjust enrichment claim.

¶ 7 Colorado Cab raised issues of duty, causation, and setoff. A division of this court addressed only the issue of duty, holding that, as a matter of law, Colorado Cab didn't owe a duty of care to Garcia under any of the three theories advanced by the district court. The division therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment for Colorado Cab. Garcia v. Colo. Cab Co. , 2019 COA 3, 490 P.3d 415 ( Garcia I ).¹

¶ 8 Garcia sought certiorari review by the supreme court. The supreme court granted certiorari review only on the issue whether the division had misapplied the rescue doctrine. The supreme court held that Garcia was indeed a rescuer within the meaning of the rescue doctrine, and therefore Colorado Cab's duty to Yusuf extended to him. Garcia v. Colo. Cab Co. , 2020 CO 55, 467 P.3d 302. The court reversed and remanded the case to us with directions to address Colorado Cab's remaining contentions. Id. at ¶ 34.

¶ 9 We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing (1) whether Colorado Cab had argued in its opening brief filed in this court that it didn't owe a duty to Yusuf, the driver, and (2) how the supreme court's recent decision in Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood v. Wagner , 2020 CO 51, 467 P.3d 287, affects the analysis of whether Colorado Cab's breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of Garcia's injuries.

¶ 10 Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefs and their original briefs, we conclude that we must answer the following remaining questions:

1. Did the district court err by allowing the jury to consider whether Colorado Cab breached its duty of care to Yusuf by failing to install partitions and interior cameras in its cabs?

2. Did the district court err by allowing the jury to determine whether Colorado Cab's breach of its duty to Yusuf was the cause of Garcia's injuries?

3. Did the district court err by denying Colorado Cab's motion for a setoff of Garcia's Medicaid payments against the damages awarded by the jury?²

¶ 11 We answer these questions as follows:

1. The district court didn't err by allowing the jury to decide whether Colorado Cab breached its duty of care to Yusuf by failing to install partitions and interior cameras in its cabs.

2. The jury reasonably could have found that Colorado Cab's breach of its duty of care caused the injuries Garcia suffered when Glinton assaulted him when they fought after Glinton got out of the cab. But, as a matter of law, Colorado Cab's breach of its duty of care wasn't the cause of the injuries Glinton caused Garcia after Glinton stole the cab, drove up the road, returned to the scene, and deliberately ran over Garcia.

3. The district court didn't err by declining to set off the amount Medicaid paid toward his medical bills against Garcia's damages.

¶ 12 The net result of our conclusions is that we affirm the verdicts on liability and damages in part and reverse them in part. Because we can't apportion damages between the two assaults based on the record before us, we remand for a new trial as to (1) the amount of damages Garcia incurred as a result of the initial assault and (2) the percentage of liability for those damages attributable to Colorado Cab and Glinton, respectively.

I. Background

¶ 13 Late one night, Yusuf picked up Glinton and Glinton's friend in Denver. The passengers, both of whom were apparently intoxicated, didn't (and perhaps couldn't) tell Yusuf where they wanted to go, but instead made it up as they went along, telling Yusuf where and when to turn. When they got to 44th Avenue and Tejon Street, Glinton told Yusuf to stop. Yusuf did so, but when he told the passengers the fare was $6.50, Glinton yelled and cursed at Yusuf, who explained the fare and told Glinton to pay. Glinton then grabbed and punched Yusuf from behind. (There wasn't a partition between the front and back seats. There was a panic button, but Yusuf wasn't able to press it.)

¶ 14 A short time earlier, Garcia, sitting in his brother's house near the intersection of 39th Avenue and Tejon Street, called for a cab. Sometime later, sitting inside the home, looking out the window, he thought he saw a taxi drive by. (It was dark, so he wasn't sure what company the taxi was from.) Thinking it might be the taxi he had called for, he followed it for about "two, three blocks."³ As it turned out, it was Yusuf's cab. When Garcia got closer, he saw the stopped taxi and could hear Glinton and Yusuf arguing. When he got to the taxi, he saw through the driver's side door Glinton punching Yusuf inside the cab. Garcia repeatedly told Glinton to pay the fare and leave Yusuf alone, saying "stop, stop, stop what you're doing. This is my neighborhood." Glinton told Garcia to "mind [his] own fucking business." Yusuf got out of the cab, followed by Glinton, who then continued to assault Yusuf. Garcia again told Glinton and Yusuf to stop fighting. Glinton then apparently attacked Garcia. They scuffled and someone hit Garcia on the head from behind with an object.⁴ Garcia may have fallen to the ground.⁵

¶ 15 Glinton then got in the driver's seat of the taxi and sped off, hitting Garcia's knee as he left. Before Glinton had gone very far, however, he abruptly turned around and drove back toward Garcia and Yusuf. Yusuf was standing in a parking lot entryway while Garcia went across the street. Glinton flew past them both at high speed. Yusuf estimated that Glinton was going between 80 and 100 miles per hour and said Glinton was driving like a "crazy man." Glinton turned around, went past them again, turned around again, then swerved toward Garcia and Yusuf. Yusuf, who had been seeking cover behind a utility pole, jumped out of the way. But Garcia, who was crossing the street back toward the parking lot, wasn't so fortunate. Glinton hit Garcia with the taxi, ran him over, and dragged him into the parking lot. He backed up, then ran over Garcia again. Glinton drove off, but quickly turned around. He then chased Yusuf around the utility pole with the cab two or three times before driving off yet again. He returned a minute later to try to run down Yusuf before leaving the scene for good.

¶ 16 Surveillance video from near the scene shows that a little more than four minutes elapsed from when Garcia first approached the cab to when Glinton ran him over. Almost three more minutes passed before Glinton drove off in the cab for the last time.

¶ 17 Garcia's injuries were extensive — they included shattered ear drums, a traumatic brain injury

, a fractured eye socket, three broken ribs, a torn anterior cruciate ligament, other torn ligaments, and more injuries causing hip and back pain.

II. Discussion

¶ 18 We address the issues of breach of duty, causation, and setoff, in that order.

A. Breach of Duty

¶ 19 At this point in the case, the only duty at issue is that which Colorado Cab owed to Yusuf, its driver: Colorado Cab didn't owe any duty to Garcia directly; rather, Garcia's status as a rescuer means he is entitled to vicariously claim Colorado Cab's duty to Yusuf. See Dillard v. Pittway Corp. , 719 So. 2d 188, 193 (Ala. 1998) ("[U]nder the ‘danger invites rescue’ doctrine, one who attempts to rescue another who has been placed in peril by the defendant stands, for purposes of determining causation, in the position of the person being rescued."); Solgaard v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. , 6 Cal.3d 361, 99 Cal.Rptr. 29, 491 P.2d 821, 825 (1971) (the rescue doctrine "permits the rescuer to sue on the basis of defendant's initial negligence toward the party rescued"); Williams v. Foster , 281 Ill.App.3d 203, 217 Ill.Dec. 9, 666 N.E.2d...