Background
Northwest Ambulance transported Frank Costa to a hospital after abnormal laboratory results. When Costa’s heartbeat appeared irregular, an EMT directed driver and fellow EMT Henry Shaw to drive under an emergency code. Shaw accelerated to pass a garbage truck, then swerved and struck a highway divider. Costa, who had been secured to a gurney with lap belts but not the shoulder restraints required by company policy, was thrown into the ambulance wall and died later that day.
Michael Lang, acting individually and as personal representative of Costa’s estate, brought wrongful-death and survival claims alleging negligent driving and failure to secure Costa properly. Northwest Ambulance admitted ordinary negligence and causation but asserted qualified immunity under RCW 18.71.210. The trial court rejected that defense as to the driving claim, and a jury returned a general verdict for the estate without distinguishing between the two alleged negligent acts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that RCW 18.71.210 does not immunize an EMT or a licensed ambulance service from liability for negligent ambulance driving. Reading the statute and related provisions together, the majority concluded that immunity extends only to acts or omissions involving medical treatment, care, or actual emergency medical procedures within an EMT’s field of medical expertise. Medical care provided during transportation may be protected, but driving the ambulance is not itself medical treatment or an emergency medical procedure.
The court did not decide whether failing to use shoulder restraints falls within the statute’s immunity. Because negligent driving independently supported the general verdict, Northwest Ambulance had the burden to request a special verdict separating the two theories if it wanted them considered independently, and it did not do so. Justice Montoya-Lewis dissented, reasoning that ambulance operation is part of rendering emergency medical services under RCW 18.71.210 and that summary judgment should have been granted to Northwest Ambulance.
Key Takeaways
- Washington’s statutory immunity for EMT negligence does not cover negligent ambulance driving merely because the driving occurs during emergency transport.
- The immunity protects qualifying medical treatment and actual emergency medical procedures within an EMT’s medical expertise, including such care rendered while a patient is being transported.
- A party challenging only one theory underlying a general verdict must object and propose a special verdict form that separates the theories.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves ordinary negligence liability for ambulance operation while distinguishing transportation from medical care delivered during transport. Ambulance services therefore cannot rely on RCW 18.71.210 to avoid liability for an EMT’s negligent driving.
The ruling also underscores the appellate consequences of using an undifferentiated general verdict: without a requested special verdict, a party may be unable to obtain review of a separate liability theory when another valid theory independently supports the judgment.