In the parable of the Good Samaritan, a man on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho is robbed, beaten, and left for dead. Two passers-by of significant social and religious status see the injured man, but choose to cross to the other side of the road. A third traveler of less repute, a Samaritan, comes to the man’s aid, takes him to an inn, tends to him through the night, and then pays the innkeeper the next morning to continue the man’s care.
We do not know from the parable whether the fear of civil liability discouraged the first two passers-by from intervening.
Another source of immunity — sovereign immunity — derives from the ancient tenet that “the King can do no wrong.”
These two statutes — the one potentially applicable to a broad class of actors but focused on emergency situations, the other applicable to a narrower class but broader in the scope of the immunity it confers — provide overlapping protection to some extent. This case concerns whether one, or both, of these statutes necessarily relieves a commercial ambulance company of liability for the allegedly negligent actions of one of its employees in providing assistance to a patient when an emergency arose while the employee was in training. We hold that they do not.
Background
The Transport of Bryson Murray
On November 15, 2007, Respondent Bryson Murray,
UMMS arranged for PHI Air Medical to carry out the transport by helicopter. Present on the helicopter was a flight paramedic team that included a UMMS pediatric intensive-care nurse, a PHI flight paramedic, and a PHI flight nurse. Also present was Chris Barbour,
After the helicopter arrived at Easton Memorial, Mr. Barbour set up equipment and the team placed Bryson on the aircraft. Shortly after take-off, however, Bryson’s heart rate and oxygen blood level began to drop, because, according to the allegations in the complaint, the endotracheal tube had become dislodged and was blocking his airway. Members of the flight team searched for a pediatric air mask to restore
The Murrays’ Negligence Action
Complaint
Bryson, by his mother, Karen Murray, subsequently filed a complaint against TransCare alleging medical malpractice on the basis that its employee, Mr. Barbour, had failed to provide the requisite standard of care and that TransCare was vicariously responsible under the principle of respondeat superior:
Summary Judgment Motion
TransCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under both the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. The Circuit Court for Talbot County
TransCare thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting two affidavits that established the company’s independent corporate status and described its billing practices. Following a hearing on that motion, the Circuit Court concluded that there were no remaining disputes of material fact and that TransCare was immune under both the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. It therefore granted summary judgment in favor of TransCare.
Appeal
The Murrays appealed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that neither statute applied to a private, for-profit ambulance company.
Standard of Review
Whether summary judgment was properly granted is a question of law; we review the Circuit Court’s decision to determine whether it was legally correct. Walk v. Hartford
Analysis
In order to assess TransCare’s claims of immunity, we must construe two statutes — the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. This Court has frequently reiterated the principles that guide statutory interpretation, which we summarize as follows:
• give effect to legislative intent
• look first to the “ordinary, plain meaning” of the language
• do not add or delete language
• do not apply forced or subtle interpretations
• keep in mind the statutory context
• consider the purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature
• avoid constructions inconsistent with common sense
• presume that each section is to work harmoniously with others
See, e.g., Willis v. Montgomery County,
Whether TransCare Has Immunity under the Good Samaritan Act
Good Samaritan Laws
Under the common law, there is no general duty to provide assistance to those in peril. See Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) § 56 at 340-43 (“the law has persistently refused to recognize the moral obligation, of common decency and common humanity, to come to the aid of another human being who is in danger ... ”). Moreover, under general principles of tort
Beginning in California in 1959,
Maryland Good Samaritan Act
Pertinent to this case, the Maryland Good Samaritan Act provides immunity to specified individuals and entities from liability for ordinary negligence that occurs in connection with assistance or medical care rendered without fee or other compensation at the scene of an emergency or in transit to a medical facility.
*234 (a) A person described in subsection (b) of this section is not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any assistance or medical care, if:
(1) The act or omission is not one of gross negligence;
(2) The assistance or medical care is provided without fee or other compensation; and
(3) The assistance or medical care is provided:
(i) At the scene of an emergency;
(ii) In transit to a medical facility;
(iii) Through communications with personnel providing emergency assistance.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section applies to the following:
(1) An individual who is licensed by this State to provide medical care;
(2) A member of any State, county, municipal, or volunteer fire department, ambulance and rescue squad, or law enforcement agency, the National Ski Patrol System, or a corporate fire department responding to a call outside of its corporate premises, if the member:
(i) Has completed an American Red Cross course in advanced first aid and has a current card showing that status;
(ii) Has completed an equivalent of an American Red Cross course in advanced first aid, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene; or
(iii) Is certified or licensed by this State as an emergency medical services provider;
(3) A volunteer fire department or ambulance and rescue squad whose members have immunity; and
(4) A corporation when its fire department personnel are immune under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
*235 (c) An individual who is not covered otherwise by this section is not civilly liable for any act or omission in providing assistance or medical aid to a victim at the scene of an emergency, if:
(1) The assistance or aid is provided in a reasonably prudent manner;
(2) The assistance or aid is provided without fee or other compensation;
(3) The individual relinquishes care of the victim when someone who is licensed or certified by this State to provide medical care or services becomes available to take responsibility.
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”) § 5-603.
CJ § 5-608(b)(3) — Text
As TransCare is a commercial ambulance company, the application of CJ § 5-603(b)(3) to it depends, in part, on whether the adjective “volunteer” modifies only “fire department” or also modifies “ambulance and rescue squad.” If “volunteer” modifies only “fire department,” TransCare potentially has immunity as an “ambulance squad” (if its “members” have immunity). If “volunteer” also modifies “ambulance and rescue squad,” TransCare does not have immunity under this
CJ § 5-603(b)(3) — Legislative history
What is now CJ § 5 — 603(b)(3) was added to the Good Samaritan Act in 1979. Chapter 301, Laws of Maryland 1979.
When the General Assembly first enacted the Good Samaritan Act in 1963, the statute applied only to physicians who provided free medical assistance at the scene of an accident.
In 1970, in the course of recodifying the statute, the Legislature returned the adjective “volunteer” to the statute. Chapter 736, Laws of Maryland 1970.
In 1976, the Good Samaritan Act was revised in response to advice from the Attorney General’s Office that an amendment of the Act was necessary to ensure that functions carried out under the new State Emergency Medical System were covered by the Good Samaritan Act. See Letter of Assistant Attorney General Paul Walter to R. Adams Cowley, M.D. (October 24, 1974). That advice did not suggest that the Act needed to be extended to commercial ambulance companies or other for-profit entities.
The 1976 revision encompassed the entire statute, including the provision concerning members of fire departments and ambulance and rescue squads. In particular, the description of the individuals covered by immunity in that provision was changed from “[tjhe members of any fire department or volunteer ambulance and rescue squads ...” to “[a] member of any State, county, municipal, or volunteer fire department, ambulance and rescue squad ...” Chapters 558, 689, Laws of Maryland 1976. The shifting of the adjective “volunteer” within the introductory phrase, however, did not signify an indirect expansion of the immunity provision to members of commercial entities. Rather, it simply ensured that the adjective “volunteer,” together with the adjectives denoting government entities, would apply to fire departments as well as ambulance and rescue squads. See Tatum v. Gigliotti,
The extension of immunity to the entities themselves in addition to their members — what is now CJ § 5-603(b)(3)— was added to this provision three years later.
A submission to the Legislature by the Anne Arundel County Executive’s office explained the need for the amendment. It indicated that the County had agreed to provide legal representation for all members of volunteer fire departments “and ambulance/rescue squads” in the county. See Legislation Submitted by the Anne Arundel County Executive, 1979 General Assembly, copy in legislative file for Senate Bill 1031 (1979). It recounted a recent case in which a volunteer fire department had been named as a defendant in a lawsuit in addition to the firefighter. The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity which is bestowed upon its constituent members. We believe the absence of this protection for the volunteer unit is not in keeping with the spirit and rationale of
There is no indication in the language of the 1979 amendment or its legislative history of any intent to extend this protection to commercial ambulance companies. The amendment keyed the immunity of a “volunteer fire department or ambulance and rescue squad” to the immunity of its “members” — an odd term to use if the amendment encompassed the employees of a company with stockholders.
After 1979, the Good Samaritan Act was amended in minor substantive respects not pertinent to this case
We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that TransCare, as a for-profit ambulance company, does not have immunity under CJ § 5-603(b)(3) regardless of whether Mr. Barbour is personally covered by the Act.
Whether TransCare as Employer Necessarily Has Same Immunity as its Employee
TransCare makes a broader argument for immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, untethered to any of the provisions that specifically confer immunity on corporations or other organizations. It asserts that, given that its liability is predicated on the actions of its employee, Mr. Barbour, it cannot be vicariously liable if Mr. Barbour is personally immune under the Good Samaritan Act.
TransCare attempts to distinguish D’Aoust on the basis that it concerned common law immunity rather than statutory immunity. But the Court in D’Aoust specifically noted that its conclusion applied “to the concept of immunity generally as it relates to causes of action based on vicarious liability.” D’Aoust,
Conclusion
TransCare is not a volunteer ambulance and rescue squad and therefore does not qualify for immunity under CJ § 5-603(b)(3). Nor is it shielded from liability under the Act for the alleged negligence of Mr. Barbour, regardless of whether he individually has immunity under the statute.
Whether TransCare Has Immunity under the Fire and Rescue Act
Fire and Rescue Act — Text
Unlike the Good Samaritan Act, the Fire and Rescue Act confers a broad immunity on certain organizations without predicating that immunity on the immunity of the organization’s members or employees. If the statute applies, it provides immunity for both the organization and its personnel. It states:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except for any willful or grossly negligent act, a fire company or rescue company, and the personnel of a fire company or rescue company, are immune from civil liability for any act or omission in the course of performing their duties.
(b) (1) The immunity granted by this section is waived with respect to actions to recover damages for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle to the following extent:
(i) For a self-insured fire company or rescue company, liability shall extend up to the minimum insurance limits imposed by § 17-103 of the Transportation Article; and
*244 (ii) For a fire company or rescue company insured by an insurer authorized to issue insurance policies in this State, liability shall extend up to the maximum limit of any basic vehicle liability insurance policy it has in effect, exclusive of excess liability coverage.
(2) The immunity granted by this section is not waived and may be raised as a defense as to any amount of damages claimed above the limits in this subsection and as to any other action for damages not involving the negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
CJ § 5-604. The statute thus provides a broad immunity from civil liability for ordinary negligence — with a limited exception related to negligent operation of a motor vehicle— for fire and rescue companies and their personnel. This Court has previously determined that the Fire and Rescue Act was intended to immunize all fire and rescue companies and their personnel: “The statute clearly and unequivocally refers to fire or rescue companies; there is no differentiation at all between public and private companies.” Mayor and City Council v. Chase,
Whether the statute provides immunity to TransCare in this case depends on whether TransCare is properly characterized as a private “fire or rescue company” — or, more precisely, a private “rescue company,” as TransCare makes no pretension of being a fire company. There is no definition of that phrase in the statute, nor is its plain meaning in this context self-evident. We look to the history of the statute, as well as the Legislature’s creation of similar immunities in other statutes, to discern the General Assembly’s purpose in establishing this broad immunity. We also consider related statutes and regulations concerning rescue companies and commercial ambulance companies.
Fire and Rescue Act — History
Although the Fire and Rescue Act provides protection similar to that provided by the Good Samaritan Act, it has a separate lineage. The legislative record reveals that the Fire and Rescue Act was intended to confer a governmental-like
Under the common law, state and local governments, and their agencies, have sovereign or governmental immunity.
In 1983, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether a volunteer fire department was protected by governmental immunities against claims related to allegedly negligent efforts to extinguish a fire. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gaithersburg Wash. Grove Fire Dep’t,
The day after the Utica Mutual opinion was released, a state senator asked legislative staff to draft a bill conferring immunity on volunteer firefighters.
As enacted in 1983, the statute also carved out an exception to the broad immunity that it recognized — an exception for liability arising from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. See CJ § 5-604(b). This exception was characterized as a “waiver” of immunity
It is quite evident that the Fire and Rescue Act was meant to complement or replicate governmental immunity — an immunity that at least some believed that volunteer fire companies and similar entities had already enjoyed. Even the Court of Special Appeals in its Utica Mutual decision had not ruled out the application of official immunity to volunteer fire departments — it simply found that there was insufficient evidence in that case to establish the governmental nature of the volunteer fire department in question and also held that the volunteer firefighters did not qualify as public officials entitled to immunity.
The term “rescue” generally connotes a crisis or emergency. A “rescue company” is presumably engaged in activities that alleviate a crisis or emergency. See Krieger v. Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad, supra,
Other parts of the Maryland Code suggest that the phrases “rescue company” or “rescue squad” typically refer to entities that (even if formally private) perform a public function in responding to crises or emergencies and would not normally include a commercial ambulance transport company. For example, “rescue squads” are authorized to enter into mutual aid agreements with contiguous states or similar entities in those states, as well as with the federal government. Maryland Code, Public Safety Article (“PS”), §§ 7-101(b), 7-103 (authorizing such agreements by a “fire, rescue, or emergency medical services entity” which, by definition, include “rescue squads”).
Whether a commercial ambulance company may be a “rescue company”
TransCare is a commercial ambulance company. According to the testimony of one of its employees, its business generally involves transporting patients from nursing homes to hospitals, from home to a dialysis center, or “wherever the patient needs to go, they take them.”
Commercial ambulance companies in Maryland are licensed and regulated by the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems (“MIEMSS”). Maryland Code, Education Article (“ED”), § 13-515. There is no mention in the statute of a licensing requirement for “rescue companies” or “rescue squads.” Rather, specifically excepted from this regulation are ambulance services provided by, or operated under, the jurisdiction of State or local government or volunteer fire or rescue companies. ED § 13 — 515(a)(3)(ii); COMAR 30.09.03.04.
It is also notable that the statute governing commercial ambulance companies requires that each company maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage in the amount of at least $1 million — in addition to motor vehicle insurance and other insurance — to provide payment for bodily injuries, death, and property damage “resulting from any cause for which the commercial ambulance service is liable.” ED § 13-515(d)(2); see also COMAR 30.09.04.06B. It is not clear why a commercial ambulance company would be required to maintain such coverage if it automatically enjoyed general immunity “from civil liability for any act or omission in the course of performing [its] duties.”
TransCare asserts that, as an ambulance company that may provide emergency medical services, it necessarily qualifies as a “rescue company” and that it is therefore entitled to the broad, governmental-type immunity provided by the Fire and Rescue Act for “any act or omission in the course of performing their duties.” Under this view, TransCare and its employees would apparently enjoy this broad immunity from liability for ordinary negligence in their normal commercial activities, with a limited exception related to motor vehicles. Indeed, the breadth of its immunity would exceed that of State or local agencies, for which the Legislature has enacted limited waivers of sovereign immunity for ordinary negligence that are not restricted to automobile accidents. We are loath to infer, in
This is not to say that a commercial ambulance company may not qualify as a “rescue company” in particular circumstances. Unlike the Good Samaritan Act, the Fire and Rescue Act is not limited to “volunteer” entities. For example, one might imagine a situation in which a local government has privatized emergency services or has otherwise enlisted commercial entities as first responders.
In this case, the Circuit Court held that TransCare qualified as a “rescue company” without any evidence that the company provides such emergency services in Maryland or that it was functioning as a first responder in the particular circumstances of this case. Indeed, the evidence available to the Circuit Court indicated that TransCare’s employee was present for training purposes related to its contract to provide inter-facility transports for UMMS patients. Accordingly, it was an error to grant TransCare’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the Fire and Rescue Act.
While we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the Circuit Court’s decision should be reversed, unlike the intermediate appellate court,
For the reasons stated above, a commercial ambulance company such as TransCare does not qualify for immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute. Moreover, in the circumstances of this case, Trans-Care has not demonstrated it functioned as a “rescue company” that has the broad immunity from liability provided by the Fire and Rescue Act. Accordingly, TransCare was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of statutory immunity.
Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals Affirmed. Costs to be paid by Petitioners.
Notes
. Katz v. WSSC,
. We will refer to Bryson Murray in this opinion by his first name to distinguish him from his mother, Karen Murray, who is also a Respondent in this case. We will refer to them collectively as "the Murrays.”
. This background is drawn from the allegations in the complaint that initiated this action, as well as other undisputed facts established in the record.
. The complaint spells the last name as "Barber.” In their briefs, the parties have consistently spelled the name as "Barbour,” which we presume to be the correct spelling.
. We use the designation “TransCare” to refer collectively to TransCare Corporation and its subsidiary TransCare Maryland, Inc., both of which were named as defendants in the complaint and both of which are Petitioners in this Court.
. TransCare does not operate helicopters or typically employ personnel to participate in air medical transportation.
. This Court has recently described the doctrine of respondeat superior: Litigants may invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior as a means of holding an employer, corporate or otherwise, vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an employee, where it has been shown that the employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship at that time. On a successful claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be held jointly and severally liable for the tortious acts committed by its employee. For an employee's tortious acts to be considered within the scope of employment, the acts must have been in furtherance of the employer's business and authorized by the employer.
S. Mgmt. Corp. v. Taha,
. The Murrays had earlier also asserted claims against PHI Air Medical and UMMS, which had been resolved by the time the complaint was filed.
. The complaint was initially filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City but, upon motion by TransCare, was transferred to the Circuit
. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed the decision to transfer the case from Baltimore City to Talbot County.
. Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 2144 (1962), later recodified as § 2395 (relieving health care providers rendering emergency aid from the standard duty of care and providing that only those who are wilfully negligent or act in bad faith face liability). See Franklin, Vermont Requires Rescue: A Comment, 25 Stan. L.Rev. 51, 52 (1972).
. The statute also applies to assistance or medical care provided “through communications with personnel providing emergency assis
. In 2008, after the events set forth in the complaint in this case, the Legislature made certain "stylistic” changes in CJ § 5-603 (b)(2) and (b)(3) as part of the annual corrective bill. Chapter 36, § 1, Laws of Maryland 2008. In particular, that law deleted the phrase “or of” from before "the National Ski Patrol” in (b)(2), added the word "or” before “law enforcement agency” in (b)(2), and replaced a comma with the conjunction "or” after "volunteer fire department” in (b)(3). Neither party has suggested that these changes have any significance for the decision of this case.
. The Court of Special Appeals opinion mistakenly attributes what is now CJ § 5-603(b)(3) to a 1982 amendment that added a similar provision relating to corporate fire departments, now codified at CJ § 5-603(b)(4).
. As originally enacted, the statute read in full:
A physician licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners in the State of Maryland, who, in good faith, renders medical aid, care, not in a hospital, and assistance for which the physician received no fee or compensation, at the scene of an accident, shall not be liable for any civil damages as the result of any professional acts or omissions by him, not amounting to gross negligence, in rendering such aid, care, and assistance. The physician shall have a defense against any action, not amounting to gross negligence, for negligence or malpractice brought against him because of any professional acts or omissions in the rendering of such care, aid and assistance.
Chapter 65, Laws of Maryland 1963 then codified at Maryland Code, Article 43, § 149A.
. A 1964 amendment recodified the 1963 law as subsection (a) of § 149A and added an additional subsection, as follows:
(b) The members of volunteer ambulance and rescue squads shall not be liable for damages as provided in subsection (a) except for gross negligence, and shall have the defense provided therein, except for gross negligence. In order to be eligible for the exemption from*237 liability provided in this section, a person must have completed a basic course of instruction in first aid, and must be on active duty as a member of a volunteer ambulance and rescue squad which (1) is a bona fide and permanent organization, and (2) is organized and operated as a non-profit group.
Chapter 48, Laws of Maryland 1964, then codified as Maryland Code, Article 43, § 149A(b). In 1965, the statute was amended to extend immunity to nurses. Chapter 475, Laws of Maryland 1965.
. The Good Samaritan Act was recodified by the 1970 law as Maryland Code, Article 43, § 132. The provision in question then read:
(b) The members of any fire department or volunteer ambulance and rescue squads shall not be liable for damages as provided in subsection (a) hereof, if the members completed an advanced Red Cross or equivalent course in first aid approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and are members of any fire department or a volunteer ambulance and rescue squad which (1) is a bona fide and permanent organization and (2) is operated as a nonprofit group.
Maryland Code, Article 43, § 132(b).
. See Chapter 736, Laws of Maryland 1970 (modifying training requirement); Chapter 266, Laws of Maryland 1972 (expanding coverage to members of National Ski Patrol System); Chapter 503, Laws of Maryland 1973 (extending coverage to law enforcement officers); Chapter 346, Laws of Maryland 1974 (extending coverage to persons rendering emergency assistance at airport).
. In the interim, the statute had been amended in other respects not directly pertinent to the current issue. See Chapter 463, Laws of Maryland 1977 (fixing defect in title of 1976 law); Chapter 140, Laws of Maryland 1978 (returning National Ski Patrol System to statute).
. By contrast, the amendment of the Good Samaritan Act three years later that extended its protection to corporations with fire departments refers to the ''personnel” of those departments. Chapter 775, Laws of Maryland 1982, now codified at CJ 5-603(b)(4).
. For example, a 1982 amendment extended immunity to members of corporate fire departments — as well as the corporation when the members were immune. Chapter 775, Laws of Maryland 1982.
. Chapter 770, § 4, Laws of Maryland 1982. The statute was originally codified in the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article as CJ § 5-309. It was later recodified as CJ § 5-603. Chapter 14, § 9, Laws of Maryland 1997.
. TransCare supports this view with its analysis of two Court of Special Appeals decisions. As TransCare concedes, neither of those decisions expressly addresses its theory that an employer necessarily has immunity under the Good Samaritan Act if its employee has immunity. Chase v. Mayor and City Council,
. Accordingly, we need not determine issues related to other conditions for immunity under the Good Samaritan Act — i.e., whether UMMS’s payments to TransCare or Mr. Barbour’s salary constituted a “fee or other compensation" that would negate immunity or whether a "transit to a medical facility” covered by the Act must occur in response to an emergency. (Nor is there any need to determine whether there was gross negligence that would preclude application of the Act; in any event, the Murrays apparently did not allege gross negligence).
. The legislative history of the statute was first reviewed by this Court in some detail in WSSC v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co.,
. In certain respects, not pertinent to the current discussion, the immunity of local governments is more limited than that of the State. See Baltimore County v. RTKL,
. E.g., Maryland Tort Claims Act, Maryland Code, State Government Article, § 12-101 et. seq.; CJ § 5-522.
. See, e.g., Harrison v. MVA,
. The court noted, however, that volunteer firefighters providing emergency assistance or medical care would potentially have immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, which was then codified at CJ § 5-309.
. The Court of Special Appeals opinion mistakenly merges the legislative histories of the Fire and Rescue Act and the Good Samaritan Act, suggesting that the Fire and Rescue Act was first enacted in 1964 and describing it as an offshoot of the Good Samaritan Act. See
. In Mayor and City Council v. Chase,
. The immunity was clearly intended to be broader in scope than that provided by the Good Samaritan Act, which only covered the provision of emergency assistance and medical care and would not, apparently in the appellate court’s view in TJtica Mutual, extend to firefighting. See Opinion of the Attorney General, No. 87-055 (November 17, 1987) (unpublished), 1987 Md AG LEXIS 4 at *8 n. 6.
. The reference to the performance of “duties/' instead of "during the course of employment,” suggests the performance of a public function and echoes language used in statutes concerning governmental immunity. See CJ § 5-522(b)(referring to "scope of public duties” in defining immunity under Maryland Tort Claims Act).
. The statute was originally codified as CJ § 5-309.1. In 1997, it was transferred to a different subtitle with other provisions concerning immunities related to health and public safety and renumbered as CJ § 5-604. Chapter 14, § 9, Laws of Maryland 1997.
. The characterization of this exception as a "waiver” — as opposed to simply part of the definition of the immunity conferred by the statute— is consistent with the notion that the immunity was otherwise all-encompassing and similar to a governmental immunity that pre-exists exceptions created by legislation.
. This provision, which used language similar to the Fire and Rescue Act, preceded the latter statute by four years. Chapter 645, Laws of Maryland 1979.
. This provision, which is similar to subsection (b) of the Fire and Rescue Act, preceded the latter statute by two years. Chapter 250, Laws of Maryland 1981.
. This provision, which also used language similar to the Fire and Rescue Act, preceded the latter statute by one year. Chapter 865, Laws of Maryland 1982.
. This provision was enacted the same year as the Fire and Rescue Act. Chapter 539, Laws of Maryland 1983. While the immunity provided by this statute was not necessarily limited to governmental entities, it was limited to acts or omissions during defined emergency situations.
. See Kent-Queen Anne's Rescue Squad (www.kentrescuesquad.com), Prince Frederick Volunteer Rescue Squad (www.pfvrs.org/content/ history/), Charles County Volunteer Rescue Squad (www.ccvrs.org/'), Ridge Volunteer Rescue Squad, St. Mary’s County (www.ridgevrs.org), Lexington Park Volunteer Rescue Squad (www.lpvrs.org/content/ history/), Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad (www.hccrs.org/ahout/ index.html), Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad (yeww.wvrs.org/dhout~2).
. PS § 7-101(b) defines a "fire, rescue, or emergency medical services entity” as a "(1) a governmental subdivision, by its appropriate designated authority; (2) a board or fire commission of a fire department or governmental subdivision; (3) a fire department; (4) a fire company; (5) a rescue squad; or (6) an emergency medical services unit, including an entity that provides emergency medical services at any level.”
. State law makes provision for the appropriation of State and county funds to support fire and rescue companies. See PS § 8-101 et seq. (establishing Senator William H. Amoss Fire, Rescue, and Ambulance Fund and providing for distribution of funds to "fire, rescue, and ambulance companies” for specified purposes); see also PS § 8-201 et seq. (establishing Volunteer Company Assistance Fund to provide grants and loans "to ensure adequate fire protection and rescue services in the State”); PS § 8-301 et seq. (authorization of county loans and grants to volunteer fire companies).
. Deposition testimony of Christopher Ryan Barbour at pp. 13-14, submitted as an exhibit to TransCare's Motion for Summary Judgment.
. The statute provides that the phrase "ambulance service” does not include "the transporting of individuals in an ambulance owned, operated, or under the jurisdiction of a unit of State government, a political subdivision of the State, or a volunteer fire company or volunteer rescue squad.” ED § 13-515(a)(3); see also COMAR
. For example, TransCare’s website indicates that it provides 911 services in New York City and other localities. See <transcare.com/ Home-Services-91 lEMS.html>.
.