Partner
When we call an ambulance, we are trusting emergency medical professionals at a moment when we may be at our most vulnerable. Washington law gives EMTs important legal protections when they are making medical decisions and providing emergency care. But do those protections also apply to negligent driving?
The recent Washington Supreme Court case of Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC answered: No. In its October 29, 2026 decision, the Court held that Washington’s statutory immunity for EMTs and ambulance services applies to qualifying emergency medical treatment and care, but it does not immunize an EMT or ambulance service from liability for negligently driving an ambulance.
The Facts: Ambulance Driver Crashed Into Garbage Truck While Transporting a Patient to the Hospital
Frank Costa was being transported to a medical facility by members of a Northwest Ambulance crew. The EMTs placed Mr. Costa on a gurney using guardrails and two lap belts, but they did not use shoulder restraints even though Northwest Ambulance’s own policy required them.
During the trip, Mr. Costa’s heartbeat became irregular, so EMTs called an emergency code, which allows the ambulance driver certain traffic privileges. However, the law still required the ambulance driver to drive with due regard for the safety of others.
While driving, the ambulance approached a garbage truck in its lane. The garbage truck appeared to be moving to the right, so the ambulance driver sped up to overtake it. The garbage truck then began to go back into the ambulance’s lane. The ambulance driver testified that he was traveling too fast to stop without hitting the truck, so swerved onto the shoulder, hitting a highway divider. Mr. Costa was ejected from the stretcher into the ambulance wall, injuring his head, neck, and arm. He died later that day.
The Legal Issue: EMTs Have Some Immunity When Performing Emergency Medical Services, But Immunity Does Not Cover Negligent Driving
Northwest Ambulance ultimately admitted that the ambulance driver’s failure to avoid the collision was negligent, and that the crew was negligent in failing to secure Mr. Costa to the gurney.
However, Northwest Ambulance asserted that it was immune from all liability under RCW 18.71.210, which gives EMTs and licensed ambulance services qualified protection from civil liability for acts or omissions done in good faith while rendering emergency medical services.
The Supreme Court disagreed. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the qualified immunity conferred by this statute is limited to acts or omissions that are part of “actual emergency medical procedures.” The Court held that driving the ambulance is not within that scope.
“Emergency medical service” is limited to “medical treatment and care which may be rendered at the scene of any medical emergency or while transporting any patient in an ambulance to an appropriate medical facility, including ambulance transportation between medical facilities.” RCW 18.73.030(11). Thus, only “medical treatment and care” can be an emergency medical service. While the statute mentions ambulance transportation, it does not define the act of transport itself as a form of medical treatment or care. Instead, the statute uses the phrase “while transporting” to describe when medical treatment or care may be provided.
The Court noted that holding ambulance drivers liable for negligent driving treats them the same as other emergency service providers, such as law enforcement and firefighters. “The legislature does not prevent people from being compensated for injuries caused by the negligent driving of law enforcement officers or firefighters when they are responding to emergencies. It would be anomalous to believe that the legislature provided that immunity for an ambulance driver who happens to be an EMT.”
And although the law does give ambulance drivers the privilege to disregard certain traffic rules while “driving code,” this does not confer immunity from liability. Instead, ambulance drivers are held to a reasonable standard of care for emergency vehicle drivers under similar circumstances.
The Bottom Line: Can Washington Patients Sue for Negligent Ambulance Driving?
The practical takeaway is significant. Ambulance cases like Lang often raise issues that do not come up in ordinary motor vehicle collisions, including medical treatment, patient restraints, special rules of the road when “driving code,” company policies and training, and so on. And it can involve potential immunity for the provision of emergency medical services. But as Lang holds, they do not involve immunity for negligent driving. As such it is important in any case involving injury during ambulance transportation to determine how the injury occurred, to determine not just whether negligence occurred but also whether or not immunity applies and what legal claims may be available.