Government Liability Update

Interagency Firefighting Immunity Does Not Apply to Non-Fire Lifesaving Activities

In Wilson v. County of San Joaquin, published July 30, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant county.  The plaintiffs' infant child, in critical condition, was transported from plaintiffs' house by private ambulance.  Two City of Stockton firefighters rode in the ambulance and performed emergency medical procedures.  The infant eventually passed away. The city firefighters provided their services under an agreement between the city and county under which the city's fire department would provide emergency medical services as part of the county's emergency medical services system.  The plaintiffs sued the county for the firefighters' lifesaving efforts.  They alleged that the firefighters committed medical malpractice and professional negligence.  The trial court granted the county summary adjudication under Government Code section 850.6.  Section 850.6 provides that when a public entity provides "fire protection or firefighting service" outside of the public entity's regular area, the public entity receiving the fire protection or firefighting service is not liable for any act or omission of the public entity providing the service.

The appellate court concluded that section 850.6's immunity did not apply.  The Law Revision Commission comment on section 850.6 stated that the statute makes clear which public entity is liable "when one entity calls for the assistance of another in fighting a fire."  The comment, along with the statute's plain language, indicates that it applies only to services related to fighting a fire.  Cases interpret a related immunity, Government Code section 850.4 (providing immunity for injury caused in fighting fires) not to apply absolute immunity to lifesaving actions unrelated to fighting fires; instead, Health & Safety Code section 1799.107 provides only a qualified immunity to such activities, immunizing public entities and emergency rescue personnel from liability for providing emergency medical services unless performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent matter.  The court concluded the placement of both section 850.4 and 850.6 in the same chapter suggests a legislative intent that they be interpreted similarly.

Firefighting Immunity Applies to Accident in Which Sleeping Firefighter Run Over by Shower Servicing Truck

In Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District, published April 19, 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed nonsuit in favor of the defendant district in a personal injury lawsuit brought by a firefighter.  During the Silver Fire, the United States Forest Service set up a base camp at Plumas County Fairgrounds.  It set up a shower unit in the infield of the fairgrounds' racetrack, and arranged for an independent contractor to service the unit.  A nonfirefighting team, which became employees of the defendant district, managed the base camp.  The plaintiff, a Forest Service firefighter, obtained permission to sleep in the infield during a break from fighting the fire.  The infield was not roped off or signed as a sleeping area.  While she was sleeping, a truck servicing the shower unit ran over the plaintiff, seriously injuring her.  She sued the district and the management team for failure to warn, negligence, and dangerous condition of public property.  The trial court granted nonsuit based on (among other grounds) Government Code section 850.4's firefighting immunity.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the defendants did not waive the section 850.4 immunity, even though they did not plead it.  Governmental immunity is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time.  The court disagreed with the holding in McMahan’s of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 that section 850.4 immunities, unlike other immunities, must be pleaded or else waived.  Absolute immunities such as section 850.4, unlike qualified immunities that depend on specific facts being true, cannot be waived.  The court further rejected the argument that the immunity applied only when firefighting facilities are being used for firefighting.  The statute's wording and legislative history establish that it alternatively applies to firefighting facilities and equipment, even when not being used to fight fires.