Running the Red: Emergency Vehicle Operations Pitfalls

By Michael K. Anderson

When emergency vehicle operators drive, they tend to have a false sense of security that everyone will yield the right of way. This is dangerous. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there are an estimated 6,500 ambulance accidents annually, with 35 percent of those ending in injury or fatality of at least one occupant. Every time the lights and sirens go on, the vehicle operator is taking a big risk, and the chances of catastrophic results can significantly increase.¹

Driving with Care

In the context of emergency vehicle operation, negligence can be understood as the failure of the operators to fulfill their duties and responsibilities with the highest degree of care when driving. This includes following vehicle and traffic laws, adhering to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and policies, and taking appropriate actions to ensure the safety of others on the road.

The concept of due regard is critical for emergency vehicle operators to understand and to follow. It means that while responding to emergencies, they should operate their vehicles with a heightened awareness of the potential dangers and risks involved. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Using lights, sirens, and other emergency warning signals to alert other drivers and pedestrians.
Slowing down at intersections.
Carefully driving through traffic.

Negligence on the part of emergency vehicle operators could lead to motor vehicle collisions, injuries, or even death. Since emergency vehicles often need to travel at high speeds and make quick maneuvers, failure to exercise the highest degree of care can result in dangerous situations for both the emergency vehicle operators and other drivers on the road.

The Legal Angle

The preponderance of the law holds emergency vehicle operators at a very high standard of care due to the potentially life-threatening nature of their work and their driving. This means they are expected, by law, to take all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid causing harm to others while still fulfilling their duty to respond to both emergencies and nonemergencies.

To ensure that emergency vehicle operators minimize negligence, the following elements of preparation are essential:

Proper training.
Clear and precise guidelines.
SOPs.
Continuous assessment of performance.

Additionally, ongoing education about the importance of due regard, as well as reviewing case studies and real-life examples, can reinforce the importance and significance of responsible driving behavior for the safety of all drivers on the roadway or the highway.

When Due Regard Is Ignored

A great example of emergency vehicle operators not implementing due regard for safety and using reasonable care is when they speed through a red light, yellow caution light, or stop sign and strike another vehicle while responding to an emergency call. One could argue, in defense of the emergency vehicle operators, that they did not or could not have foreseen the potential danger of the collision occurring. However, we know many emergency vehicle apparatus collisions occur at both controlled and noncontrolled intersections.

Prudent emergency vehicle operators must, without any exceptions, come to a complete stop at all red lights and stop signs and even slow down for yellow caution lights before proceeding through intersections. It is imperative by law that they wait until the privilege of the right of way is granted by the other drivers on the highway or roadway.

Being granted permission by other drivers to cross a controlled or noncontrolled intersection is a privilege—not a requirement—by public drivers. And it is a privilege emergency vehicle operators cannot lose due to recklessness or negligence.

What Failure Looks Like

As we continue to discuss negligence, the concept of failure comes to mind. Let’s take a closer look at its components:

“When Such Failure Is Present.”
This refers to the failure of emergency vehicle operators to exercise reasonable care, due regard, and caution while performing their duties. In the context of negligence, it means the emergency vehicle operators did not fulfill their duty to act reasonably, with due regard, and prudently, given the circumstances surrounding the collision events.
“Negative Result.”
Referring to cases with respect to negligence, a negative result typically refers to harm caused to another person or their property. A significant apparatus collision implies an incident involving a vehicle of any size or equipment, often associated with emergency services, such as fire engines, ambulances, and police vehicles.
“Another.”
This component of negligence indicates that the failure of the emergency vehicle operators led to harm or damage to someone else. This may include, but is not limited to, physical injuries, property damage, or even death. The harm must be suffered by a third party who was not the negligent party.

Emergency vehicle operators are often held to a higher standard of care due to the nature of their work, which involves responding to critical situations. Negligence on the part of emergency vehicle operators can have severe consequences given the potential for collisions to cause significant harm to individuals and property.

Keep in mind that the application of negligence law can vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Proving negligence generally involves demonstrating the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the breach and the harm caused, and actual damage suffered by the victim.

The prevalence of lawsuits and the potential impact they have on individuals, businesses, and society is clear.

Here’s an overview of several aspects of the legal system and related consequences.

Litigation Culture.
The perception that lawsuits are increasingly common and seen to achieve personal gain or financial compensation has led to what some might call a litigation culture. This culture shift can influence people’s attitudes toward resolving disputes and seeking compensation.
Personal Responsibility.
This is the notion that individuals might sue others even when the fault lies with them. This raises questions about personal responsibility and the appropriate allocation of blame and liability.
Deep Pocket Theory.
Often mentioned in discussions about lawsuits, this concept suggests that the plaintiffs target entities with substantial financial resources, assuming they are more likely to secure compensation. This can potentially lead to unjust lawsuits that might lack merit.
Impact on Society.
The financial repercussions of lawsuits can have broad societal effects. The funds paid out in settlements or judgments can result in higher insurance premiums, taxes, or fees for services, affecting everyone who uses those services or lives within a community.
Balancing Compensation and Consequences.
While it’s important for individuals to be able to seek compensation for legitimate grievances, finding a balance between providing a fair remedy for harm and preventing unjustified lawsuits is a complex challenge.
Legal System Reform.
The impact of lawsuits on society can lead to discussions about legal system reform. This might involve changes to tort laws, liability standards, or mechanisms for resolving disputes outside of litigation.
Public Perception.
It’s also worth noting that public perception plays a role in lawsuits. High-profile cases and media coverage can shape how people view lawsuits and their implications.

It is imperative to remember that the topic of lawsuits and their societal impact is multifaceted, and different perspectives exist on these issues. While some might view lawsuits as a necessary means for individuals to seek justice and compensation, others might share your concerns about their broader impact on society. This is an ongoing challenge for legal systems worldwide.

Case Study

The following case study, from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) illustrates the importance of understanding due regard, reasonable care, rapid use evaluation (RUE) emergency, and negligence.

On July 26, 2010, at 4:30 p.m., a 59-year-old male volunteer fire chief (victim 1) and a 67-year-old male volunteer firefighter (victim 2) died from injuries sustained after they were ejected when their engine was involved in a crash and rolled over. The engine, with its lights and siren activated, was responding to a mutual-aid residential structure fire. The crash occurred when the engine entered an intersection with a red light and was struck by a sport utility vehicle (SUV). The engine rolled over and ejected both victims. Victim 1 was pronounced dead after being transported to a local hospital. Victim 2 was pronounced dead at the scene. Both victims were reported to not be wearing their seatbelts.

Contributing factors for the incident follow:

Nonuse of seat belts.
Failure of the motorist to yield the right of way to an approaching emergency vehicle with audible and visual signals in use.
Failure to ensure that all approaching vehicles had yielded the right of way before advancing through an intersection.
Failure to come to a complete stop at a red traffic signal.
Lack of intersection control device on emergency vehicle and traffic light.

Additional information on this incident is available in NIOSH “Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program,” report number 2010-19. ²

Lawsuits involving emergency vehicles are going to happen whether the emergency vehicle operator was at fault or not. Traffic laws state you have a duty to operate and drive an emergency vehicle with due regard for all other drivers on the roadway or highway. The law has come back to bite several emergency vehicle operators many times after a collision. If you do not know your individual state laws governing emergency vehicle operation, it is highly recommended that you make it a point to learn your local jurisdiction’s laws and department SOPs.

ENDNOTES

1 . “Statistics on Emergency Vehicle Accidents in the United States,” Arnold & Itkin. bit.ly/3uTKMok.

2. “Death in the Line of Duty…A summary of a NIOSH fire fighter fatality investigation,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Updated March 16, 2011. bit.ly/3tbFswj.

MICHAEL K. ANDERSON is a private investigator, a paralegal, an expert witness, and a consultant specializing in fire/emergency medical service (EMS) law in Ruston, Washington. He served 41 years in the fire/EMS service and 13 years in law enforcement. He is a certified crime scene/medico-legal death investigator and forensic written statement analyst. Anderson has provided expert witness opinions on several fire/EMS-related cases.