Fire, Rescue, and “Paramedic Immunity”
Published .
The general concept
Emergency response laws may protect firefighters, rescue personnel, and emergency medical responders from civil liability for some acts or omissions while performing emergency duties. These protections are usually qualified: they define who is covered, what conduct is covered, and when an exception or waiver permits a claim. A protection for a fire or rescue company is distinct from a Good Samaritan rule for an individual giving emergency medical aid.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland has two important provisions. Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-604 generally protects a fire company or rescue company, and its personnel, from civil liability for acts or omissions in the course of their duties, except for willful or grossly negligent conduct. The Supreme Court of Maryland has held that this protection includes municipal fire departments and their employees, as well as volunteer companies; the statute is not limited to volunteer responders. Ordinary negligence alone therefore does not defeat § 5-604 immunity. The statute expressly waives immunity for negligent operation of a motor vehicle, up to specified insurance limits: the minimum required limits for a self-insured company, or the company’s basic vehicle policy limit if insured. Immunity remains available above those limits and for other claims. Section 5-603 is a separate, conditional protection for emergency assistance or medical care. It covers listed people and organizations—including licensed medical-care providers and qualifying members of fire departments, ambulance and rescue squads, and law enforcement—when the care is not grossly negligent, is given without fee or other compensation, and occurs at the scene, in transit to a medical facility, or through communications with emergency personnel. The statute sets training, certification, or other qualifications for many responder categories. It also has a distinct rule for an otherwise-uncovered person who gives prudent, uncompensated aid at an emergency scene and relinquishes care when a licensed or certified provider becomes available. Which subsection applies depends on the defendant, the kind of conduct, the responder’s status and qualifications, and whether the statutory conditions are met. A defendant’s identity as a municipal department does not by itself eliminate § 5-604 protection, and invoking either statute does not resolve factual disputes about whether conduct was grossly negligent or whether a motor-vehicle waiver applies.
TransCare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray draws an important distinction between a commercial ambulance company and a qualifying fire or rescue company. The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a for-profit ambulance company does not receive entity immunity under § 5-603, even if an individual employee might independently qualify. Under § 5-604, however, private ownership alone is not disqualifying: a commercial company may qualify if it is functioning as a rescue company in the particular circumstances, such as when a government enlists it to provide emergency response. TransCare was not entitled to summary judgment because its employee was riding on an interfacility transfer for training, and the company had not shown that it was acting as a first responder. The case addresses the company’s immunity; it does not hold that every private paramedic lacks individual immunity. A public employer may also have separate governmental-immunity defenses, depending on the entity, the conduct, and applicable statutory limits.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 5-603, 5-604.; TransCare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray, 431 Md. 225, 64 A.3d 887 (2013).; Stracke v. Estate of Butler, 465 Md. 407, 214 A.3d 561 (2019).; Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 756 A.2d 987 (2000).