The Washington Supreme Court ruled on October 29, 2026, that emergency medical technicians (EMTs) do not have immunity from civil liability for negligent driving while transporting patients. This decision affects EMTs and ambulance services across the state, clarifying the limits of legal protections granted to them under state law.

The case, Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC, No. 104498-4, arose from a tragic incident in which Frank Costa, a patient being transported by Northwest Ambulance, died after an ambulance driven by EMT Henry Shaw collided with a highway divider. The court's ruling emphasizes that while EMTs are protected from liability for negligent medical care, this protection does not extend to negligent driving.

Background

The parties involved in this case include Michael J. Lang, who is the personal representative of Frank Costa's estate, and Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC, which operates Northwest Ambulance. The dispute centers around whether Northwest Ambulance is entitled to immunity under Washington state law for the actions of its EMTs during the transport of Mr. Costa.

On the day of the incident, Mr. Costa was being taken to a hospital when the ambulance, driven by Mr. Shaw, crashed into a highway divider. The crew had also failed to secure Mr. Costa properly in the ambulance. Following the accident, Mr. Costa sustained severe injuries and died later that day. His estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Northwest Ambulance, arguing that the EMTs' negligence led to his death.

Northwest Ambulance contended that it should be immune from liability under RCW 18.71.210, which provides immunity to licensed ambulance services for acts performed in good faith while rendering emergency medical services. The trial court ruled against Northwest Ambulance, stating that the EMTs were not providing emergency medical services while driving the ambulance, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that Northwest Ambulance is not entitled to qualified immunity for negligent driving. The court stated, "We hold that Northwest Ambulance is not entitled to qualified immunity in this case." The ruling clarified that the immunity provided under RCW 18.71.210 applies only to acts involving medical expertise and not to the act of driving an ambulance.

The court emphasized that while EMTs are protected from liability when providing medical care, the act of driving is not considered part of rendering emergency medical services. The court noted, "Driving an ambulance is not an act done while rendering emergency medical services." This key distinction is vital for understanding the limits of EMTs' legal protections in Washington state.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for EMTs and ambulance services in Washington. It establishes that EMTs can be held liable for negligent driving, which may lead to increased accountability and potentially higher insurance costs for ambulance services. The decision also clarifies the legal landscape regarding the responsibilities of EMTs during patient transport, emphasizing that they must adhere to the same standards of care expected of any driver.

Furthermore, the ruling could influence future cases involving EMTs and other emergency responders, as it sets a precedent that distinguishes between medical care and transportation. This distinction may prompt legislative discussions about the need for clearer definitions of emergency services and the scope of immunity granted to emergency personnel.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Northwest Ambulance may consider appealing to a higher court, although the Supreme Court's decision is typically final. There are no related cases pending that directly address this issue, but the ruling may inspire further legal challenges or legislative changes regarding EMT liability in Washington.