## Facts

- Kathryn Bondy was struck by a car while walking in a marked crosswalk and suffered serious pelvic and hip injuries.
- Gold Cross Ambulance Service transported Bondy to a hospital; a paramedic assessed her as alert and oriented and secured her on a backboard and gurney with straps.
- During transport, the paramedic loosened some straps to remove Bondy’s coat for a secondary assessment, leaving other straps fastened.
- The ambulance’s movement caused Bondy’s left leg to slide off the backboard/gurney so her foot touched the ambulance floor; Bondy screamed.
- The paramedic immediately returned her leg to the backboard/gurney and refastened the straps.
- Bondy alleged the leg-off-gurney incident caused additional injury or aggravated injuries from the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient expert evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the leg-off-gurney incident caused additional injury or aggravation, precluding summary judgment.
2. Whether an ambulance service providing emergency medical transport is subject to the heightened duty of a common carrier rather than the professional standard of care for medical/EMS providers.
3. Whether the ambulance service could be held jointly and severally liable for the entire harm under a single-indivisible-injury theory despite disputed proof of causation.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Gold Cross.
- The court held the plaintiffs’ expert causation evidence was legally insufficient because it was speculative and did not establish causation to the required degree of medical certainty.
- The court held Gold Cross was not a common carrier and was not subject to a heightened common-carrier standard of care.
- The court rejected joint and several liability under a single-indivisible-injury theory on this record.

## Legal Principles

- In medically complex negligence cases, causation generally must be proven by expert testimony expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; opinions framed as mere possibilities do not create a triable fact issue.
- Speculative expert testimony lacking an adequate factual foundation cannot defeat summary judgment on causation.
- Ambulance services providing emergency medical care and transport are evaluated under the professional standard of care applicable to medical/EMS providers, not the heightened common-carrier duty.
- A defendant cannot be held responsible for an entire injury under a single-indivisible-injury theory without sufficient proof that the defendant’s conduct caused or aggravated the plaintiff’s harm.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the ambulance service because the plaintiffs failed to offer non-speculative expert evidence that the transport incident aggravated the pedestrian’s collision injuries, and because the ambulance service owed the ordinary professional duty of care rather than a common-carrier duty.


Bondy v. Allen, 635 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)