Washington Supreme Court Says EMT Qualified Immunity Does Not Shield Negligent Ambulance Driving

Educational disclaimer: This article provides general educational information about Washington and Oregon ambulance-crash and injury claims. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and cannot predict the outcome of a claim.

On October 29, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court decided Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC, doing business as Northwest Ambulance, No. 104498-4. The court held that qualified immunity under RCW 18.71.210 does not apply to an EMT’s negligent driving of an ambulance.

In plain English, the court distinguished driving from emergency medical treatment. Negligent ambulance driving is transportation, not medical care within an EMT’s medical expertise.

That decision may matter to people injured in Washington ambulance crashes. But it does not mean every ambulance crash creates liability or guarantees recovery. It also does not establish Oregon law. The facts, parties, conduct, causation, injuries, and applicable deadlines must still be analyzed separately in each case.

What the Washington Supreme Court decided in Lang

The case arose after an ambulance struck a highway divider while transporting Frank Costa to a hospital. Costa was ejected from the stretcher, suffered injuries, and later died.

Northwest Ambulance admitted that its driver was negligent and that the negligence caused the accident. Those admissions were specific to that litigation. They should not be assumed in another ambulance-crash case.

The central question was whether RCW 18.71.210 protected the negligent driving through qualified immunity. The court held that it did not.

Why the court distinguished driving from medical care

RCW 18.71.210 protects certain qualifying good-faith acts and omissions performed while rendering emergency medical services. The statute applies to listed EMTs, first responders, supervising personnel, hospitals, licensed ambulance services, and governmental entities.

Washington law defines emergency medical services to include medical treatment and care rendered at an emergency scene or while transporting a patient in an ambulance, including transportation between facilities.

The court interpreted “while transporting” as describing when medical care may occur—not as making the act of driving itself medical treatment. The majority concluded that driving an ambulance is transportation, not medical treatment or care, and does not itself require medical expertise.

As a result, the qualified-immunity defense did not cover negligent ambulance driving.

What qualified immunity does—and does not—cover in Washington

The Lang decision addresses one specific defense. It does not decide every issue that could arise after an ambulance crash.

RCW 18.71.210 provides qualified—not absolute—protection for certain people and entities when they perform qualifying good-faith acts or omissions while rendering emergency medical services. The statute also excludes gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct.

After Lang, negligent ambulance driving is outside the cited immunity. But that does not mean RCW 18.71.210 is irrelevant to all EMT conduct. The statute may still matter when a claim concerns qualifying medical treatment or another act within an EMT’s medical expertise.

The court also did not decide whether failing to use shoulder restraints falls within the statute’s immunity. The case involved admissions that the crew was negligent in failing to use shoulder restraints, but the Supreme Court relied on negligent driving and expressly declined to decide the restraint question.

That issue remains fact-specific and unresolved by Lang.

Washington emergency-vehicle privileges still have limits

Qualified immunity and emergency-vehicle traffic privileges are different issues.

Washington law gives emergency-vehicle drivers certain privileges under specified conditions. These can include proceeding past red signals after slowing and exceeding posted speed limits without endangering life or property.

Those privileges are not unlimited. Washington law preserves the driver’s duty to operate the vehicle with due regard for everyone’s safety and does not protect reckless disregard for safety.

Therefore, an ambulance’s emergency status does not automatically resolve whether the driver’s conduct was lawful or whether another person may have a claim. The traffic privileges must be considered separately from the qualified-immunity question addressed in Lang.

What Lang may mean for a Washington ambulance-crash claim

For a Washington claim involving negligent ambulance driving, Lang removes one potential immunity defense. It does not establish that a claim will succeed.

A case may still require evidence concerning:

• What the driver or other personnel did;
• Whether that conduct caused the crash or injury;
• The nature and extent of the injuries;
• Who owned and operated the ambulance;
• Whether the ambulance service was private, governmental, licensed, or contracted;
• Whether restraints were used and how they were used;
• Whether other medical, maintenance, staffing, supervision, or training issues are involved; and
• Which notice and limitation rules apply.

The Lang court considered case-specific admissions of negligence and causation. Those admissions cannot be presumed in a different case.

The decision also does not address every element of negligence, wrongful death, survival, or other possible claims. It does not guarantee liability, a settlement, or a recovery.

Because deadlines and notice requirements may depend on the facts and the parties involved, there is no single universal deadline that applies to every ambulance-crash claim. Public-entity claims may involve different requirements from claims against private services. Prompt, jurisdiction-specific review can help identify what information and records need to be preserved.

Washington and Oregon are not the same

Lang is a Washington decision. It does not establish Oregon law.

Oregon has separate statutes governing emergency-vehicle privileges, emergency transportation, volunteer assistance, and ambulance-service financial responsibility. The precise analysis may depend on where the crash occurred, who provided the transport, whether the service was paid, and the conduct involved.

Oregon emergency-vehicle privileges

ORS 820.300 addresses specified emergency-vehicle traffic privileges and requires due regard for the safety of others.

Those privileges are separate from the Washington qualified-immunity issue in Lang. An Oregon ambulance driver’s traffic privileges do not answer every question about negligence, immunity, causation, or liability.

Oregon emergency-transportation immunity

ORS 30.807 concerns a person providing emergency transportation assistance without compensation. It includes additional conditions and requires proof of gross negligence for a damages action.

That statute is not a direct equivalent of the paid licensed-service context considered in Lang. Whether it applies depends on the facts, including the nature of the service and whether compensation was involved.

ORS 30.800 and ORS 30.803 also address specified uncompensated emergency medical assistance or volunteer EMS situations. Their applicability is fact-dependent.

Oregon readers should not assume that Oregon follows—or rejects—the distinction the Washington Supreme Court made in Lang.

Oregon ambulance financial responsibility

ORS 682.105 requires qualifying private ambulance owners or services to maintain proof of financial responsibility for liability arising from ambulance operation, use, maintenance, or prehospital care.

An insurance or financial-responsibility requirement does not establish that a particular claim will succeed. It also does not guarantee that coverage will be available in every circumstance.

Practical steps after an ambulance crash

Whether the crash occurred in Washington or Oregon, preserving information early may help clarify what happened. Consider taking these steps:

1. Follow medical instructions and document your injuries

Continue the medical care recommended for your injuries. Keep records of treatment, instructions, bills, and other information concerning your condition.

2. Preserve crash and transport details

Write down or preserve the date, time, and location of the crash. Keep any available information identifying the ambulance, ambulance company or agency, driver and crew, transport route or destination, witnesses, and circumstances surrounding the crash. Photographs and other records may also be important. Johnson Law’s guide to preserving evidence after an accident explains why early documentation can matter in an injury claim.

3. Preserve restraint information

Record what restraints were used, how they were used, and what happened during the crash. If you or a family member was transported, preserve information about the stretcher, shoulder restraints, or other restraint equipment.

The Lang decision did not resolve whether failure to use shoulder restraints falls within Washington’s qualified immunity. Restraint evidence may still be important to an individual case.

4. Identify the ambulance owner and operator

Try to determine who owned and operated the ambulance and whether the service was private, licensed, governmental, or contracted. That information may affect which parties, records, notice requirements, and legal rules need to be considered. If a public entity may be involved, Johnson Law’s guide to Washington government-vehicle claims and evidence provides related context, but it does not replace claim-specific review.

5. Identify records that may need to be preserved

Potentially relevant records may include video, dispatch and transport records, incident reports, driver and crew records, maintenance information, medical records, restraint records, and crash-investigation records.

A crash report, agency investigation, or insurer communication may not resolve every preservation, notice, or deadline issue.

6. Analyze Washington and Oregon separately

If the crash, transport, patient, ambulance company, or governmental entity involves more than one state, do not assume that one state’s law controls every issue. A Washington crash may involve Washington statutes and Lang. An Oregon crash requires analysis under Oregon law. Cross-border facts may require additional review.

What families should understand in fatal-injury cases

The Lang case involved a patient who was injured in an ambulance crash and later died. But the decision did not resolve every issue that may arise in a wrongful-death or survival matter.

Families should preserve transport, medical, crash, ownership, and causation records. The legal analysis may depend on the specific facts, the parties involved, and the applicable state law.

The fact that Lang removed one immunity defense for negligent ambulance driving does not determine every wrongful-death, survival, negligence, or damages issue.

Bottom line

The Washington Supreme Court held in Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC, doing business as Northwest Ambulance, that negligent ambulance driving is outside the qualified immunity provided by RCW 18.71.210.

The ruling does not create automatic liability or guarantee recovery. It does not decide whether failing to use patient restraints falls within the immunity. It also does not establish Oregon law.

After an ambulance crash, preserve medical, transport, crash, restraint, ownership, and witness information. Then obtain a prompt, state-specific review of the facts, applicable defenses, and possible notice or deadline requirements.

Frequently asked questions

Does Lang mean an EMT is always liable after an ambulance crash?

No. Lang addresses whether RCW 18.71.210 qualified immunity covers negligent ambulance driving. It does not decide every element of a claim or guarantee liability or recovery.

What exactly did the Washington Supreme Court hold?

The court held that negligent ambulance driving is transportation, not protected medical treatment or care under the qualified-immunity provision at issue.

Did the court decide whether patient restraints are covered by immunity?

No. The court expressly declined to decide whether failing to use shoulder restraints falls within RCW 18.71.210 immunity.

Do Washington ambulance drivers still have emergency-vehicle privileges?

Yes, Washington law provides specified emergency-vehicle privileges under certain conditions. Those privileges remain subject to the driver’s duty to use due regard for everyone’s safety and do not protect reckless disregard for safety.

Does Lang apply in Oregon?

No. Lang is a Washington decision and does not establish Oregon law. Oregon has separate statutes concerning emergency-vehicle privileges, emergency transportation, volunteer assistance, and ambulance-service financial responsibility.

What evidence should I preserve after an ambulance crash?

Preserve medical records, treatment information, photographs, witness details, ambulance and operator identifiers, transport details, restraint information, and any available agency or company records. Potentially relevant records may include video, dispatch and transport records, incident reports, driver and crew records, maintenance information, and medical or restraint records.

Source notes

This article is based on the following sources:

1. Washington Supreme Court, Lang v. Platinum Nine Holdings, LLC, No. 104498-4
2. RCW 18.71.210
3. RCW 18.73.030
4. RCW 46.61.035
5. ORS 820.300
6. ORS 30.807
7. ORS 682.105

Educational information only: This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. The law and deadlines may depend on the specific facts, parties, location, and claims involved.