Hernandez v. Lifeline Ambulance, LLC
181 N.E.3d 131
Ill.2020Background
- On March 11, 2016, an ambulance owned by Lifeline and driven by Joshua Nicholas ran a red light in Chicago and collided with Roberto Hernandez’s vehicle; the ambulance was not using lights or siren.
- The ambulance had been dispatched to pick up a dialysis patient for a scheduled nonemergency transport from Villa Park; the crew was en route (about 20 miles away) when the collision occurred.
- Hernandez sued for negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and respondeat superior; his insurer filed a subrogation action; the suits were consolidated.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the negligence and respondeat superior claims under section 3.150(a) of the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act (EMS Act), claiming immunity for ambulance operators providing nonemergency medical services; the trial court granted dismissal of negligence claims but reserved willful/wanton counts.
- The appellate court reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and held EMS Act §3.150(a) does not bar negligence claims based on negligent driving while en route to pick up a patient for nonemergency transport (but willful/wanton claims remain).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3.150(a) of the EMS Act immunizes an ambulance owner/driver for negligence occurring while en route to pick up a patient for nonemergency transport | Hernandez: immunity applies only once ambulance is engaged in providing medical services to a patient (i.e., at scene or with patient aboard) | Lifeline/Nicholas: immunity attaches on dispatch; “before or during transportation” covers driving to pickup as preparatory integral conduct | Court: immunity does not apply to driving many miles en route to pickup; "before" transportation is limited to care rendered to patient at pickup scene; negligence claims survive |
| Whether prior decisions (American National, Abruzzo) require extending immunity to en route driving | Plaintiff: prior cases concern preparatory conduct at scene and emergency contexts and do not support extending immunity to distant driving | Defendants: those cases support a broad reading to include preparatory conduct (including response and driving) | Court: those cases are distinguishable and support a narrower reading here; preparatory conduct integral to care begins at scene; dissent argued the opposite |
Key Cases Cited
- American National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 2d 274 (2000) (EMS Act immunity construed to include preparatory conduct integral to providing life‑support services)
- Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge, 231 Ill. 2d 324 (2008) (reaffirmed broad scope of EMS Act immunity to cover omissions integral to providing emergency care)
- Wilkins v. Williams, 2013 IL 114310 (2013) (confirmed §3.150(a) immunity extends beyond patients to third parties where conduct relates to providing EMS; immunity not limited to lights/siren operation)