Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad
210 N.J. 581
| N.J. | 2012Background
- A wrongful-death/survival action alleges Plainfield Rescue Squad unreasonably delayed transport of Odis Murray after a gunshot wound, causing his death.
- Plaintiff families sue the Rescue Squad and JFK Medical Center; the Squad’s EMT-basics performed CPR and attempted to treat the victim on scene.
- Mercy 9, a mobile ICU unit from JFK, may have arrived late or not at scene; trial record disputes exist about its arrival and actions.
- Expert opinion attributes substantial delay and improper on-scene management to the Squad, linking it to the victim’s failure to survive.
- The trial court granted JFK immunity under N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14 and later granted the Squad summary judgment based on N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29 and Good Samaritan Act.
- Appellate Division affirmed rejection of claims against JFK and the Squad; Supreme Court granted certification to interpret N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29 as to entity immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29 immunize the Rescue Squad as an entity? | Murray argues the statute covers the squad as an entity, shielding it from negligence claims. | Rescue Squad contends immunity applies only to individuals, not the entity. | N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29 does not immunize the Rescue Squad as an entity. |
| Does 26:2K-29 immunize EMT-basics performing intermediate life support? | EMT-basics are within the statute’s scope via ‘officers and members of a first aid, ambulance or rescue squad.’ | Statute focuses on intermediates; immunity does not extend to the entity for intermediate services. | The court interprets the statute as not granting entity immunity; it clarifies scope includes certain individuals. |
| Should immunity be read to foreclose liability despite alleged lack of good faith or negligence in transport timing? | Evidence shows substantial delay and deviation from standard care contributing to death. | Defendants acted in good faith providing on-scene care and timely transport decisions; no proximate causation shown. | Statutory immunity does not bar the claims at the summary-judgment stage; issues for trial remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 208 N.J. 114 (N.J. 2011) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of plain meaning)
- Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (N.J. 2009) (de novo standard; interpret statutory language in context)
- Henry v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320 (N.J. 2010) (summary judgment standard; favorable view to non-movant evidence)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment; evidentiary inferences for non-movant)
- Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 207 N.J. 190 (N.J. 2011) (certified question on statutory immunity under 26:2K-29)