Washington's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, October 29, that the state's emergency medical immunity law does not protect an ambulance company from liability for its driver's negligent driving, leaving intact a $2.3 million jury award to the estate of a patient who died after a crash on Highway 526 near Everett.
The 6–3 decision in Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC rejected the argument of Platinum Nine, which does business as Northwest Ambulance, that the legal protections for emergency medical care also covered the conduct of the emergency medical technician behind the wheel. Writing for the majority, Justice Salvador Mungia drew a line between medical treatment provided inside an ambulance and the act of driving the vehicle itself.
Source: The Olympic Herald
What happened on Highway 526
Frank Costa, 78, was living at a care facility in Everett and had metastatic cancer when concerning bloodwork prompted an ambulance transfer in November 2020, according to the Court of Appeals' account of the case. Two emergency medical technicians, Henry Shaw and Jack Wilson, and an EMT trainee responded and placed Costa on a gurney with guardrails and belts across his waist and knees — but without the shoulder straps that company policy required.
During the trip, Wilson became concerned about Costa's irregular heartbeat and called for emergency driving, and Shaw switched on the ambulance's lights and sirens. On Highway 526, Shaw accelerated as a garbage truck appeared to move to the right; Shaw testified that the truck then moved back into his lane and that he could not brake in time, so he swerved right and struck a highway divider. The Court of Appeals said the ambulance hit the divider at 53 miles per hour. Costa was thrown from the gurney into the ambulance wall and died later that day from blunt force trauma.
Northwest Ambulance fired Shaw and Wilson after the crash. The Supreme Court majority cited a termination letter identifying failures involving patient restraints, excessive speed and defensive driving.
Why the legal question mattered
Michael Lang, representing Costa's estate, sued Northwest Ambulance on wrongful death and survival claims. The company admitted ordinary negligence — and admitted that its negligence caused Costa's crash-related injuries and death — but denied gross negligence and argued it was immune from the ordinary-negligence claim under Washington law, RCW 18.71.210. That statute protects qualifying emergency medical services performed in good faith from liability for ordinary negligence, though it does not protect gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
The estate argued that driving an ambulance and fastening restraints were outside the medical procedures the law covers. The company argued that its licensed crew was providing protected emergency services during transport. The trial court rejected the immunity defence; with negligence admitted, the case went to a jury on noneconomic damages alone, and the jury awarded the estate $2.3 million. King County Superior Court Judge Andrea A. Darvas entered the judgment in February 2024, and Division I of the state Court of Appeals upheld the result in July 2025. The company had already paid the award before appealing, so Thursday's decision preserves the verdict rather than ordering a new payment.
What the majority said — and the dissent
The majority focused on statutory language limiting immunity to emergency medical procedures within a provider's medical expertise. A related statute defines emergency medical service as treatment and care that may be delivered at an emergency scene or 'while transporting' a patient — language the majority read as identifying when and where treatment may occur, not as making transportation itself a medical procedure. '[T]he act of driving is not itself medical treatment or care under the qualified immunity statute,' Mungia wrote. The court noted that driving an ambulance is not part of the medical skills required for EMT certification, and that the EMT behind the wheel is not simultaneously attending to the patient. Mungia also highlighted Shaw's testimony that his initial driver training consisted of a PowerPoint presentation lasting perhaps one or two hours.
Source: Justia, Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings opinion summary
Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis dissented, joined by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Justice Pro Tempore Barbara Madsen. She argued that transportation and medical treatment are integral parts of ambulance service: the EMT caring for the patient assesses the emergency and directs changes in the driving response, while the driver acts on that medical judgment. Under her reading, ambulance drivers would still have to exercise ordinary care, but good-faith mistakes would be protected unless they amounted to gross negligence. She would have extended immunity to both the driving and the use of patient restraints and ruled for Northwest Ambulance.
The ruling did not decide whether immunity could cover the crew's separate failure to use shoulder restraints. Because the jury returned a general verdict and the company had not asked for a special verdict form separating the two theories, the majority held that the negligent-driving claim alone was enough to sustain the verdict — and the restraint question remains for another case.
What this means, and what happens next
For Washington families — including the state's large Punjabi community in the Seattle–Tacoma corridor, Kent, Auburn and Everett — the ruling sets the statewide rule that an ambulance company's emergency-care immunity stops at the driver's seat: negligent driving is judged under the ordinary standard of care that applies to emergency vehicle drivers, who may exceed speed limits only under specified conditions and must still drive with regard for everyone's safety. The decision is final in this case, and the $2.3 million award, already paid, stands. Whether the legislature revisits the immunity statute, and how ambulance operators respond on driver training, are the next chapters to watch.