38 Cal. App. 5th 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Infant found unresponsive; AMR paramedics began resuscitation and City of Stockton firefighters Popoff and Whitlock rode in the ambulance to San Joaquin General Hospital providing advanced airway management, intraosseous access, epinephrine, and ventilation.
- Hospital imaging later revealed a subdural hematoma and other injuries; infant was later airlifted and died; father pled no contest to felony child abuse.
- Plaintiffs (parents) sued multiple providers alleging medical malpractice, professional negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Second Cause of Action alleged malpractice by City firefighters and sought to hold San Joaquin County (which contracted for the services) liable.
- The County moved for summary adjudication relying on Government Code §850.6, arguing that when the City’s firefighters provided emergency medical services on behalf of the County they were rendering "fire protection or firefighting service" and the County was immune.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication for the County; plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding §850.6 does not cover EMS unrelated to fighting fires and thus does not immunize the County here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code §850.6 immunizes the County for negligent acts of City firefighters providing emergency medical services under the County’s EMS agreement | §850.6 is limited to services ‘‘attendant to fighting a fire’’ and does not cover EMS unrelated to fire suppression; thus County is not immune | §850.6’s phrase "firefighting service" should be read broadly to cover routine services firefighters perform, including emergency medical services, so County is immune | Reversed: §850.6 applies to fire protection/firefighting activities attendant to fighting fires and does not extend to EMS unrelated to firefighting; County not immune under §850.6 |
| Whether the summary adjudication order was appealable | Order finally resolved all claims between plaintiffs and County (only remaining cause against County), so appealable | County argued order was not appealable because of form/labeling | Court held the adjudication operated as a final judgment as to the County and was appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Mendocino Fire Prot. Dist., 142 Cal. App. 3d 345 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statutory immunity for firefighting does not extend to negligent rescues in nonfirefighting incidents)
- Eastburn v. Regional Fire Prot. Authority, 31 Cal.4th 1175 (Cal.) (Health & Safety Code §1799.107 provides qualified immunity for emergency services separate from firefighting immunity)
- Ma v. City & County of San Francisco, 95 Cal. App. 4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses legislative response providing immunity for emergency rescue personnel)
- Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1064 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appealability principles for summary adjudication and finality)
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal.) (statutory interpretation principles)