38 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In August 2011 Stockton firefighters Popoff and Whitlock rode in an AMR ambulance and performed emergency medical procedures (bag‑valve mask ventilation, intubation, intraosseous infusion, epinephrine) on an infant who was in cardiopulmonary distress; the infant later died from non‑accidental trauma.
- The infant’s father pleaded no contest to felony child abuse; plaintiffs (the parents) sued multiple medical and emergency providers for medical malpractice, professional negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action alleged the County of San Joaquin was liable for negligence by the City firefighters who provided emergency medical services pursuant to an interjurisdictional agreement.
- The County moved for summary adjudication asserting immunity under Government Code § 850.6 (which protects a public entity receiving “fire protection or firefighting service” from liability for acts of the providing entity).
- The trial court granted summary adjudication for the County; plaintiffs appealed, arguing § 850.6 does not cover non‑firefighting emergency medical services.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding § 850.6 does not immunize the County for the firefighters’ emergency medical services and that immunity for emergency services is governed instead by Health & Safety Code § 1799.107 (a qualified immunity requiring bad faith or gross negligence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 850.6 immunizes a public entity receiving services from liability for negligent emergency medical care provided by another public entity’s firefighters | § 850.6 is limited to services attendant to fighting fires; emergency medical services are outside that scope, so County is not immune | § 850.6’s term “firefighting service” should be read broadly to include all regular firefighter services (including EMS), so the County is immune | Reversed: § 850.6 does not apply to non‑firefighting emergency medical services; the County is not entitled to immunity under § 850.6 for the conduct at issue |
| Whether the trial court’s summary adjudication order was appealable | Order disposed of all claims against the County and therefore is appealable | The order was interlocutory and not appealable | Appeal is proper: the adjudication effectively resolved all claims as to the County and is appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Mendocino Fire Protection Dist., 142 Cal.App.3d 345 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 850.4 immunity does not cover injuries from nonfirefighting rescues)
- Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority, 31 Cal.4th 1175 (Cal.) (statutory framework: Health & Safety Code § 1799.107 provides qualified immunity for emergency services)
- Ma v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing legislative response to Lewis and scope of immunity for emergency rescue personnel)
- Jacobs‑Zorne v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.App.4th 1064 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appealability standard for summary adjudication orders)
- Rehmani v. Superior Court, 204 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App.) (summary adjudication burden shifting principles)
- Dyna‑Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal.) (statutory construction principles)
- Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30 Cal.4th 139 (Cal.) (use of legislative comments in interpreting statutes)