24/12 - Maryland Courts

§5-639 (establishing immunity for owners of “emergency vehicles” providing “emergency
service” and creating exception related to motor vehicle insurance limits). 39
It is quite evident that the Fire and Rescue Act was meant to complement or replicate
governmental immunity – an immunity that at least some believed that volunteer fire
companies and similar entities had already enjoyed. Even the Court of Special Appeals in
its Utica Mutual decision had not ruled out the application of official immunity to volunteer
fire departments – it simply found that there was insufficient evidence in that case to
establish the governmental nature of the volunteer fire department in question and also held
that the volunteer firefighters did not qualify as public officials entitled to immunity.
“Rescue Company”
The term “rescue” generally connotes a crisis or emergency. A “rescue company” is
presumably engaged in activities that alleviate a crisis or emergency. See Krieger v.
Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad, Inc., supra, 599 F. Supp. at 772-73 (describing local
rescue squad providing “rescue, ambulance, fire-fighting support, and emergency medical
services” that “shows up primarily to care for, rescue and transport the injured”). There are
a number of entities in Maryland, generally in rural areas, that refer to themselves as a
39 This provision was enacted the same year as the Fire and Rescue Act. Chapter 539,
Laws of Maryland 1983. While the immunity provided by this statute was not necessarily
limited to governmental entities, it was limited to acts or omissions during defined
emergency situations.
27