24/12 - Maryland Courts

UMMS patients. Accordingly, it was an error to grant TransCare’s motion for summary
judgment on the basis of the Fire and Rescue Act.
While we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the Circuit Court’s decision
should be reversed, unlike the intermediate appellate court, 46
we do not rule out the
possibility that a commercial ambulance company could establish that it performs the
function of a “rescue company.” Thus, if a commercial ambulance company like TransCare
could demonstrate, on the basis of undisputed facts, that it functioned as a rescue company
in particular circumstances, it would be entitled to summary judgment under the Act. Of
course, we express no opinion on whether TransCare will be able to do so.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, a commercial ambulance company such as TransCare
does not qualify for immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, regardless of whether the
company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute. Moreover, in the
circumstances of this case, TransCare has not demonstrated it functioned as a “rescue
company” that has the broad immunity from liability provided by the Fire and Rescue Act.
Accordingly, TransCare was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of statutory
immunity.
46 203 Md. App. at 224 (“a private commercial ambulance company is not, by
definition, a fire or rescue company ...”).
32