You asked (1) what immunity does a municipal volunteer emergency medical technician (EMT) or firefighter have for personal injury and property damage claims when he is acting within the scope of his duties and (2) whether he is obligated to stop and render assistance if he sees a motor vehicle accident or other emergency situations when traveling in his own vehicle.

Our office is not authorized to give legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.

SUMMARY

State law makes anyone who is an unpaid volunteer for a municipal agency immune from negligence liability for damage or injury resulting from any act, error, or omission made in the exercise of his policy or decision-making responsibilities if (1) he was acting in good faith and within the scope of his official functions and duties and (2) was not acting in violation of any state, municipal, or professional code of ethics regulating his conduct. There is a federal statute that provides similar but not identical immunity. It appears that each law applies to volunteer EMTs and firefighters.

This state and federal immunity does not apply to reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct; civil rights violations; or to intentional torts such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, or defamation.

A separate Connecticut statute bars trespass actions against firefighters who go onto property to extinguish or investigate fires (CGS § 7-308).

In addition to the immunity protection, Connecticut law also indemnifies volunteer firefighters and “volunteer ambulance service members” for negligence judgments secured against them under certain circumstances. It appears that volunteer EMTs come within this definition although the statutes do not explicitly state this. Each municipality must pay on their behalf all sums they become obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed for personal and property damages if they were performing their duties and the injury or damage was not the result of any willful or wanton act. This duty to indemnify does not apply unless the injured person notifies the municipality within six months of the injury and files the lawsuit within one year.

We could not find any Connecticut law that requires volunteer firefighters or EMTs to stop and render assistance when they are not acting in their official capacity as a firefighter or EMT. But if they choose to do so, they are given some protection by the “Good Samaritan Law. ”

Connecticut's “Good Samaritan Law” affords volunteer firefighters and EMTs who are not acting in their official capacity protection from negligence liability for damage caused while giving emergency first aid, or when forcibly entering a residence to render first aid to a person who they reasonably believe to be in need of emergency first aid. The law does not apply to acts or omissions constituting gross, willful, or wanton negligence.

IMMUNITY FOR ACTIONS WHILE ACTING AS A FIREFIGHTER OR EMT

State law gives anyone who serves as an unpaid member of a municipal agency immunity from personal liability for damage or injury resulting from any act, error, or omission made in the exercise his policy or decision-making responsibilities if (1) he was acting in good faith, and within the scope of his official functions and duties, and (2) was not acting in violation of any state, municipal, or professional code of ethics regulating his conduct (CGS § 52-577n(c)). This immunity does not apply if the damage or injury was caused by his reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct.

The courts have generally equated wanton acts with acts done recklessly or with callous disregard. These are acts that indicate a reckless disregard of the rights or safety of others or of the consequences

of the action. If these elements are present, it is not necessary to prove that an official actually intended to harm someone (West Haven v. Hartford Ins. Co. , 221 Conn. 149).

A willful injury is one inflicted intentionally without just cause or excuse. The term “willful” imports intent. Both the act and the resulting injury must be intentional. The intentional injury aspect may be satisfied if the resultant harm was the direct and natural consequence of the intended act (Markey v. Santangelo, 195 Conn. 76).

Willful misconduct is conduct that shows willful disregard of someone's interest, such as deliberate violations of procedure or of expected standards of behavior. It includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule (Todd v. Administrator of Unemployment, 5 Conn. App. 309).

While this immunity protects policy or decision-making responsibilities it does not cover “ministerial acts”. A ministerial act is one performed in a prescribed manner, without considering or using judgment or discretion (Pluhowsky v. New Haven, 151 Conn. 337). It is not always easy to distinguish a ministerial act from a discretionary one. For example, in Wright v. Brown, the court held that a dog warden's finding that a dog had bitten someone outside of its owner's premises was a discretionary determination of facts. Having made that finding, keeping the dog in quarantine for 14 days was a ministerial act. Releasing the dog before the mandatory end of quarantine was a negligent act for which she was liable (167 Conn. 464).

FEDERAL LAW IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEERS

A federal law that provides immunity for volunteers (The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U. S. C. 1450 et seq. ) became effective in September of 1997. The act grants people who perform volunteer work for a nonprofit organization or government entity immunity from civil liability for injuries they cause by their negligence while volunteering. It also establishes a clear and convincing standard of proof for punitive damages to be awarded against volunteers and makes them liable for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) only to the degree their wrongdoing caused the harm.

The act preempts state laws to the extent they are inconsistent with it. It does not preempt state laws that provide additional protection from liability. But states can opt out of the law by passing an act explicitly doing so. Connecticut has not opted out. Thus, the law applies here.

Scope of Limitation on Liability

Under the act no volunteer of a nonprofit organization or governmental entity can be liable for harm caused by his act or omission on its behalf if:

1. he was acting within the scope of his responsibilities at the time of the act or omission;

2. he was properly licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate authorities in the state where the harm occurred;

3. the harm was not caused by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the person harmed by the volunteer; and

4. the harm was not caused by the volunteer operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which the state requires the operator or owner to possess a license or maintain insurance.

The act specifies that it does not affect (1) any civil action brought by the nonprofit organization or governmental entity against the volunteer or (2) such organization's or entity's liability with respect to harm a volunteer causes.

The act also specifies that a state law is not inconsistent with the federal act because it:

1. requires the organization or entity to adhere to risk management procedures including mandatory training of volunteers;

2. makes the organization or entity liable for the volunteer's acts or omissions to the same extent as an employer is liable for its employees' acts or omissions;

3. makes a limitation of liability inapplicable if the civil action was brought by a state or local government officer pursuant to state or local law; or

4. makes a liability limitation apply only if the organization or entity provides a financially secure source of recovery such as an insurance policy for those harmed by the volunteer.

Exemptions to Immunity

The act does not apply to any misconduct that:

1. constitutes a crime or act of international terrorism as defined by federal law for which the volunteer has been convicted;

2. constitutes a hate crime as defined by federal law;

3. involves a sexual offense as defined by state law for which the volunteer has been convicted;

4. involves misconduct for which the volunteer has been found to have violated a federal or state civil rights law; or

5. occurred when the volunteer was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.

Limitation on Punitive Damages

The act prohibits the award of punitive damages against a volunteer unless the person harmed establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was proximately caused by the volunteer's actions which constituted willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the injured person's rights or safety.

Liability for Noneconomic Loss

Under the act, a volunteer may be liable for noneconomic loss allocated to him in direct proportion to the percentage of his responsibility for the harm. The act requires the jury (or judge in a nonjury trial) to determine the volunteer's percentage of responsibility for the harm.

INDEMNIFICATION OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE MEMBERS

State law requires municipalities to indemnify volunteer firefighters and “volunteer ambulance members” for damages to person or property caused by their negligence while performing their duties (CGS § 7-308).

It appears that “volunteer ambulance members” include volunteer EMTs although the statutes do not explicitly state this. State law defines “ambulance service” as including answering alarms, calls for emergency medical service or directly returning from calls for the emergency situations, duties performed while performing transportation or treatment services to patients under emergency conditions, while at any location where emergency medical service is rendered, while engaged in drills or training exercises, or while at tests or trials of any apparatus or equipment normally used in the performance of such medical service drills. Active members include unpaid volunteers (CGS § 7-314 (b)). State law defines an “emergency medical technician” as an individual who has successfully completed the training requirements established by the public health commissioner and has been certified by the Department of Public Health (CGS § 19a-175(7)).

Connecticut broadly defines firefighting duties as including duties performed while at fires, while answering fire alarms, answering and returning from calls for mutual aid assistance, at fire drills or parades, at tests or trials of any apparatus or equipment normally used by the fire department, going directly to or returning directly from such tests or trials, answering or returning from ambulance calls where the ambulance service is part of the fire service, answering or returning from fire department emergency calls, and any other duty ordered by a superior or commanding officer in the fire department (CGS § 7-314).

Willful or Wanton Acts

The duty to indemnify applies to acts of negligence; it does not apply to willful or wanton acts.

Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise such care as most people ordinarily exercise under the same or similar circumstances (Clemens v. State, 176 Wis. 289; 57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence, § 98). Negligence is doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do, or not doing something that a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances. The standard is an objective one. It focuses on what a person of ordinary prudence in the exercise of due care would have seen, believed, and done under the circumstances (Dokus v. Palmer, 130 Conn. 247; Weimer v. Brock-Hall Dairy Company, 131 Conn. 361; Connecticut Law of Torts, § 30). Gross negligence, on the other hand, generally signifies more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, but less than conscious indifference to consequences (Alspaugh v. Diggs 195 Va. 1, 77 S. E. 2d 362; Prosser on Torts, Gross Negligence).

The usual meaning assigned to a willful or wanton act is that the actor has intentionally done an act of unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow (Second Restatement of Torts, § 500; Cope v. Davidson 30 Cal. 2d 193; Prosser on Torts—Degrees of Negligence). It is usually accompanied by a conscious indifference to the consequences amounting almost to a willingness that they shall follow. A willful or wanton act is an action or omission, which amounts to an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent (Prosser on Torts, Degrees of Negligence). Such willful or wanton act must be more than mere thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or simple inattention.

Procedural Requirements

The duty to indemnify does not apply unless the injured person complies with certain notice and time limit requirements. The injured party must notify the municipality and the firefighter of his intent to file suit within six months of the accident. A suit cannot start against a municipality or firefighter until at least 30 days after the injured party has filed its claim with the municipality. The injured party must file the suit within one year of the accident.

Insurance

The municipality can obtain appropriate insurance or act as a self-insurer. The municipality and the firefighter can be represented by the same attorney, so long as the municipality files a statement with the court stating that it will pay any verdict.

Comparison Between Employees and Volunteers

Paid firefighters appear to have more protection than volunteer firefighters and volunteer ambulance members in a few areas. First, a separate statute requires municipalities to indemnify municipal employees for alleged civil rights violations (CGS § 7-101a (a)). Presumably, this statute applies to firefighters who are municipal employees.

Second, this statute requires municipalities to indemnify employees for legal fees and costs they sustain by virtue of negligence or civil rights suits filed against them. This explicit duty to indemnify for costs and fees does not extend to volunteers.

Finally, this statute requires municipalities to indemnify employees for legal fees and costs to defend against claims that they acted willfully and wantonly. But they must reimburse the municipality if they are found liable for these claims.

CONNECTICUT GOOD SAMARITAN LAW

The Good Samaritan Law (CGS § 52-557b) provides immunity from civil damages for acts of ordinary negligence in connection with the

rendering of emergency medical service by specified individuals under certain circumstances. The immunity does not apply to gross, willful, or wanton negligence.

Under CGS § 52-557b(a), medical technicians who provide free emergency medical assistance outside their normal employment or practice are immune from liability for ordinary negligence.

Under CGS § 52-557b(b), volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel who render emergency first aid are also not liable for ordinary negligence if they have completed a course in first aid offered by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, the National Ski Patrol, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, or any director of health as certified by the agency or director of health offering the course.

This law also exempts firefighters, police officers, or emergency medical service personnel who forcibly enter the residence of any person to render emergency first aid from liability for damages to property.

GC: dw