Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.71
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.71.210 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No act or omission of any physician's trained advanced emergency medical technician and paramedic, as defined in RCW 18.71.200, or any emergency medical technician or first responder, as defined in RCW 18.73.030, done or omitted in good faith while rendering emergency medical service under the responsible supervision and control of a licensed physician or an approved medical program director or delegate(s) to a person who has suffered illness or bodily injury shall impose any liability upon:
(a) The physician's trained advanced emergency medical technician and paramedic, emergency medical technician, or first responder;
(b) The medical program director;
(c) The supervising physician(s);
(d) Any hospital, the officers, members of the staff, nurses, or other employees of a hospital;
(e) Any training agency or training physician(s);
(f) Any licensed ambulance service; or
(g) Any federal, state, county, city, or other local governmental unit or employees of such a governmental unit.
(2) This section shall apply to an act or omission committed or omitted in the performance of the actual emergency medical procedures and not in the commission or omission of an act which is not within the field of medical expertise of the physician's trained advanced emergency medical technician and paramedic, emergency medical technician, or first responder, as the case may be.
This section shall apply also to emergency medical technicians, advanced emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and medical program directors participating in a community assistance referral and education services program established under RCW 35.21.930.
(3) This section shall apply also, as to the entities and personnel described in subsection (1) of this section, to any act or omission committed or omitted in good faith by such entities or personnel in rendering services at the request of an approved medical program director in the training of emergency medical service personnel for certification or recertification pursuant to this chapter.
(4) This section shall apply also, as to the entities and personnel described in subsection (1) of this section, to any act or omission committed or omitted in good faith by such entities or personnel involved in the transport of patients to mental health facilities or chemical dependency programs, in accordance with applicable alternative facility procedures adopted under RCW 70.168.100.
(5) This section shall not apply to any act or omission which constitutes either gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
[ 2015 c 157 s 5; 2015 c 93 s 4; 1997 c 275 s 1; 1997 c 245 s 1. Prior: 1995 c 103 s 1; 1995 c 65 s 4; 1989 c 260 s 4; 1987 c 212 s 502; 1986 c 68 s 4; 1983 c 112 s 3; 1977 c 55 s 4; 1971 ex.s. c 305 s 3.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2015 c 93 s 4 and by 2015 c 157 s 5, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Effective date—1995 c 103: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [April 19, 1995]." [ 1995 c 103 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Marthaller v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 973 P.2d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marthaller v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 973 P.2d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “Marthaller’s appeal presents the following issues: (1) has the Hospital carried its burden on summary judgment to establish that the paramedics are entitled to immunity under RCW 18.71.210; (2) may the coroner who performed the autopsy on Stephen’s body provide expert testimony…”
Timson v. Pierce Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 15, 149 P.3d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “1 ¶23 Relying on the legislative intent expressed in RCW 18.71.210, 2 Timson argues that the legislative intent exception applies to her claims and that her action may proceed.”
Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 243 P.3d 552 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “066; and under RCW 18.71.210, willful and wanton behavior will preclude immunity for emergency medical care providers.”
Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 158 Wash. App. 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “066; and under RCW 18.71.210, willful and wanton behavior will preclude immunity for emergency medical care providers.”
Michael Lang, Res/cross-app.. V. Platinum Nine Holdings, Llc, Apps/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 23× “NWA moved for summary judgment, claiming they were immune from liability under RCW 18.71.210. Lang also moved for summary judgment, contending RCW 18.”
Lesa Samuels v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 20× “APPLICABLE FAULT STANDARD Samuels initially argues that RCW 18.71.210 does not apply and that simple negligence, not gross negligence, is the correct fault standard.”
Deschamps v. Mason Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 96 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “0975 states in pertinent part: (1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability *559 (f) For errors in preparing or…”
Est. of Torres v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No 17 (E.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 15× “350, and that they are immune from liability per RCW 18.71.210. ECF No. 6 374 at 2. 7 I. RCW 4.”
Timson v. Pierce Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 15, 149 P.3d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “[1] ¶ 23 Relying on the legislative intent expressed in RCW 18.71.210 [2] , Timson argues *432 that the legislative intent exception applies to her claims and that her action may proceed.”
Dinitia Harris, V. Fed. Way Pub. Schs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “, RCW 18.71.210(1)(g) (limiting liability to EMTs and government employers of EMTs for rendering medical services unless grossly negligent); RCW 4.”
Deschamps v. Mason Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 96 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “(f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person's eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license. (emphasis added). [3] Case law has not interpreted RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.71.210(1) — 2 cases
Lesa Samuels v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “APPLICABLE FAULT STANDARD Samuels initially argues that RCW 18.71.210 does not apply and that simple negligence, not gross negligence, is the correct fault standard.”
Est. of Torres v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No 17 (E.D. Wash. 2023). “350, and that they are immune from liability per RCW 18.71.210. ECF No. 6 374 at 2. 7 I. RCW 4.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.71.210(1)(g) — 2 cases
Lesa Samuels v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “APPLICABLE FAULT STANDARD Samuels initially argues that RCW 18.71.210 does not apply and that simple negligence, not gross negligence, is the correct fault standard.”
Dinitia Harris, V. Fed. Way Pub. Schs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “, RCW 18.71.210(1)(g) (limiting liability to EMTs and government employers of EMTs for rendering medical services unless grossly negligent); RCW 4.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.71.210(2) — 1 case
Michael Lang, Res/cross-app.. V. Platinum Nine Holdings, Llc, Apps/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “NWA moved for summary judgment, claiming they were immune from liability under RCW 18.71.210. Lang also moved for summary judgment, contending RCW 18.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.71.210(5) — 2 cases
Lesa Samuels v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “APPLICABLE FAULT STANDARD Samuels initially argues that RCW 18.71.210 does not apply and that simple negligence, not gross negligence, is the correct fault standard.”
Est. of Torres v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No 17 (E.D. Wash. 2023). “350, and that they are immune from liability per RCW 18.71.210. ECF No. 6 374 at 2. 7 I. RCW 4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.