The Professional Rescue Doctrine.
The general rule in Washington is that a person who is injured while rescuing or attempting to rescue another may recover from the party whose negligence created the need for rescue. Because professional rescuers assume certain risks as part of their profession, the general rule does not apply to them.
Under the professional rescue doctrine, when a professional rescuer is injured by a known hazard associated with a particular rescue activity, the rescuer may not recover from the party whose negligence caused the rescuer's presence at the scene. Where the negligent acts of multiple parties cause the public safety issue that necessitates the professional rescuer's presence, the doctrine bars recovery from each of these parties.
The professional rescue doctrine does not bar a professional rescuer from recovering for injuries:
Workers' Compensation and Recovery in Third-Party Legal Actions.
Under the state industrial insurance laws, workers injured on the job are entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits. In return for the no-fault nature of industrial insurance, injured workers may not sue their employers or a co-worker. However, in cases where a third party may liable for the injury, the injured worker or their beneficiary may sue the third party for damages. The injured worker may also assign the cause of action to the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) or self-insured employer. State law provides a specific formula to be used when distributing any third-party recovery, and the Department and the self-insurer are entitled to be reimbursed for the benefits paid and estimated to be paid in the future.
The professional rescue doctrine is abolished.
A professional rescuer who suffers any injury, disease, or death while in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties may seek recovery and damages from the person or entity whose neglect, willful omission, or willful or wanton conduct resulted, directly or indirectly, in the employee's injury, disease, or death. A professional rescuer may not bring an action that is otherwise barred by any other statutory provision.
"Professional rescuer" includes law enforcement officers, firefighters, employees performing wildfire suppression, and emergency medical services personnel.
The substitute bill:
(In support) The professional rescue doctrine is a court-created immunity that completely bars first responders and public safety employees from bringing claims against wrongdoers who harm them in the line of duty. The vital importance of this legislation can be seen clearly in the case of Seattle firefighters who were seriously injured in a natural gas explosion; the local utility company claimed that it had capped the gas line, but it had not. The court dismissed the firefighters' claims not on the merits, but based on the professional rescue doctrine, which not only protects the wrongdoers at the expense of taxpayers but also treats first responders unequally and unfairly compared to average citizens.
The trend across the country is to abolish or limit the professional rescue doctrine and to protect the first responders, who deserve the same rights as everyone else. The Oregon Supreme Court called the doctrine inconsistent with modern tort law and abolished it in 1984. The Michigan Legislature recently abolished the doctrine with a very similar bill. The Washington Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to either abolish the professional rescue doctrine or carefully limit it, but they passed on it.
Firefighters understand that their job is extremely risky, and they willingly risk a lot to save lives. The impact of rescuers' injuries is often lifelong, and their families can be left destitute because disability benefits and health insurance do not necessarily cover the additional care that may be needed. In cases where negligence is involved, rescuers should be able to recoup something, and this bill would help with that by holding those who are negligent accountable.
(Opposed) None.