# EMT sued for ambulance crash



## Ridryder911 (Apr 13, 2007)

For those services that do not require or provide EVOC for driving or lack experience in driving an EV : 


_Wis. ambulance driver, company sued in crash
Plaintiff's wife fatally injured in 2005 crash in Waukesha 

By David Doege 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin)
Copyright 2007 Journal Sentinel Inc. 

WAUKESHA, Wis. — The husband of a woman killed in 2005 when the car she was driving was struck by an ambulance is suing the company operating the service and the ambulance driver. 

Gregg Theune of Waukesha filed the lawsuit against Kettle Moraine Emergency Medical Services Inc. of Waukesha and Jennifer Dalleska, who now lives in Michigan.

Ted Larsen, owner of the company, was out of town Wednesday and could not be reached for comment. Dalleska also could not be reached for comment.


Lucinda "Cindy" L. Theune, 50, died from a head injury suffered in the collision on April 8, 2005, in Waukesha. She died two days later.

An intensive care and emergency room nurse, Theune was traveling east through a green light on Summit Ave. when her 2001 Mazda Protegé was struck on the passenger side by a Kettle Moraine ambulance at 9:40 a.m.

The ambulance, with its lights and sirens operating, was going north on Meadowbrook Road, carrying a physician and two nurses in addition to the ambulance attendants. The ambulance was taking a perinatal team from Waukesha Memorial Hospital to Oconomowoc Memorial Hospital.

The lawsuit says that Theune was wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash and tried unsuccessfully to avoid a collision when she noticed the ambulance approaching her car.

The suit contends that Dalleska "was a driver of lesser experience (than the woman sitting beside her acting as lookout) and was a driver who had a propensity to drive recklessly and/or too fast for conditions."

The ambulance firm, the lawsuit contends, was negligent in failing to provide "appropriate supervision and training," had inappropriate policies in place for drivers and was not diligent in making sure the rig was in good running order, among other things.

The lawsuit, filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court, seeks unspecified damages
_


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 14, 2007)

Could be worse. 

The EMT could have been charged with vehicular homicide and looking at jail/prison time.


----------



## FF/EMT Sam (Apr 14, 2007)

This article doesn't say a lot of importnat things, such as whether or not the driver followed his state's laws for running red lights.  That said, he did have the lights and sirens on, and the victim could have avoided getting hit by *NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE AMBULANCE!!!!!*


----------



## lfsvr0114 (Apr 14, 2007)

In Texas, we have to drive with due regard to safety.  This means it is NOT OK to just run a red light because you have the lights and sirens going.  You still must be able to stop and you must make sure the intersection is clear and that all vehicles see you and do yield.  Running lights and sirens is asking permission from other vehicles to yield to you on red, not make you king of the road.  

Newer cars nowadays are being made more soundproof, people are preoccupied with other things or on their cellphone or have the radio booming and therefore don't hear or see us.  We have to watch out for those people. 

In our EVOC class, we were told that there is only a 30 second warning to other motorists when we are driving emergency traffic.  Given this, after the reaction time to situation and then to stop or yield, many times there is not enough braking time.


----------



## Stevo (Apr 14, 2007)

almost doesn't matter who's fault it is, the spectre of _'ambulance driver'_ rears it's ugly head once again as the unsavory wild-eyed nascar escapee

too bad the press (are we a victim of liberal press?) isn't as excited over report all those saves we make ...

~S~


----------



## chico.medic (Apr 14, 2007)

FF/EMT Sam said:


> This article doesn't say a lot of importnat things, such as whether or not the driver followed his state's laws for running red lights.  That said, he did have the lights and sirens on, and the victim could have avoided getting hit by *NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE AMBULANCE!!!!!*


Or the operator of the LSV could drive w/ due regard, and clear the intersection before continuing through a red light at speeds great enough to kill another motorist. :glare: JM$0.02


----------



## LIFEGUARDAVIDAS (Apr 14, 2007)

I think that regardless of that particular case, all EMS personnel from EMT-Bs to Paramedics must be trained in emergency vehicle driving and refresh that training in a yearly basis.

Here in Argentina, there aren't EMTs or Paramedics, some ambulances have a driver and what they call a "stretcherer" (camillero). In the best cases there's a doctor too. Besides the fact that non of the three has proper pre-hospital emergency medical care training, the driver often is a former or future taxi driver. 

I really consider that the US EMS community is the one that set the bar higher and higher for the rest of the world every year, and I hope that the EV operation aspect of the different training/certifications won't become the exception. 

For all of you out there, wear your seat belt even if not responding to a call, and be safe,

Guri


----------



## Airwaygoddess (Apr 14, 2007)

I think that Cindy brought up a very vaild point about how the new cars are getting so sound proof.  We as EMS responders need to remember that the public are not looking out for us,but we need to look out for them......-_-


----------



## FF/EMT Sam (Apr 14, 2007)

chico.medic said:


> Or the operator of the LSV could drive w/ due regard, and clear the intersection before continuing through a red light at speeds great enough to kill another motorist. :glare: JM$0.02




Absolutely.  Unfortunately, the article does not say if the ambulance came to a full stop, or any other things that would help us determine if he was reckless or if the victim was being unreasonable.


----------



## BloodNGlory02 (Apr 15, 2007)

This actually happened in my county. The ambulance was operating under normal conditions and thought the car with the "victim" was coming to a stop and proceeded thru the light. the car actually struck the ambulance. Newspapers never report everything or 100% truth, we all know this.


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 15, 2007)

BloodNGlory02 said:


> The ambulance was operating under normal conditions and *thought *the car with the "victim" was coming to a stop and *proceeded thru the light*. the car actually struck the ambulance.




Good learning statement.


----------



## lfsvr0114 (Apr 15, 2007)

BloodNGlory02 said:


> This actually happened in my county. The ambulance was operating under normal conditions and thought the car with the "victim" was coming to a stop and proceeded thru the light. the car actually struck the ambulance. Newspapers never report everything or 100% truth, we all know this.




Does not matter here, if the light was red and the ambulance did not make sure that all vehicles were stopped, it is the ambulance's fault.  Lights and sirens do not give anyone the right to run a red light or immunity from the law for anything that happens.


----------



## daemonicusxx (Apr 15, 2007)

Ridryder911 said:


> _
> and was a driver who had a propensity to drive recklessly and/or too fast for conditions."
> 
> _



I dont know if i understand this right. As said before, they left out the fact that the car hit the ambulance, they leave that out but point out that the driver of the medic had a "propensity" to drive recklessly? Just wierd.


----------



## Raf (Apr 15, 2007)

I don't know if training really helps that much. Some people are just better drivers naturally than others. Although, training helps avoid stupid things such as going through a red light full speed.


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 15, 2007)

Here's a few more articles on the crash. 

http://www.lightsubo.org/ambulance-lights.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=345280

http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2007/April_07/04112007_04.asp

http://www.objectivesafety.net/RotorWings&WheelsApril2006-page11.pdf


----------



## FF894 (May 21, 2007)

I am curious because we are re-structuring our requirements right now for my department.  How many of you were required to take EVOC before driving the ambulance and do you work for a private or dept. based service?

We currently have an in-house driving program with the option of going to the academy based program which only 4 of us have done (myself included).  Training is limited to actual vehicle operations (where is the headlight switch?) and not so much the actual driving and safety aspects of emergency respdonding.  So, like I said we are in the process of increasing the trainging and requirements to let people drive.  We are a fire department based service.


----------



## lfsvr0114 (May 21, 2007)

I work at a both types of services and I have taken both CEVO and EVOC.  Here at the fire station, our insurance wants us to take the class every year.  The certificate I have been told is good for 2 years.


----------



## bstone (May 21, 2007)

I have a habit of pulling to the right and stopping when I hear sirens, even before I see the lights. While I cannot say if the driver of this car did that or not, I can say that it would save a few lives every year if more people would simply pull to the right and pull over.


----------



## firemedic_30ca (Mar 20, 2010)

FF/EMT Sam said:


> This article doesn't say a lot of importnat things, such as whether or not the driver followed his state's laws for running red lights.  That said, he did have the lights and sirens on, and the victim could have avoided getting hit by *NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE AMBULANCE!!!!!*



Due regard is actually a way of removing liability for emergency vehicle operation from the state. Essential, due regard means that any accident involving emergency vehicles while driving with lights and sirens is the operators fault. Had they used "due regard" during their operation, they would have avoided the incident there by relieving the state from reasonability of making base guidelines. 

Think about it. If the state says you may run a red light while driving code 3 as long as you are traveling 15mph or under, as California does, then the state could potentially be sued for negligent and fatal lack of emergency vehicle operating guidelines should there be a death or serious injury.

I worked in texas for a while. We used to joke saying we should respond to everything code 2 cause if we hit a person that ran a red light, it would be their fault. But if we hit a person running a red light while driving code 3, we weren’t using “due regard,” and no its our fault.


----------



## Aidey (Mar 20, 2010)

I wonder why such a long time has passed before the law suit was filed (seriously, just curious, not trying to insinuate anything here).


----------



## Dominion (Mar 20, 2010)

We are required to take the EVOC every year.  Our evoc consists of three parts; a classroom lecture with videos and test, a driving course, and a code 3 evaluation on the streets where a supervisor will ride third on a run.  The thing that scares me the most about driving though is that our ambulances are in POOR condition.  Most of the time they are half repaired and half ducttape/zip ties.  I was in a truck the other day that nearly died on the way to a transfer, we turned around and made it back to HQ ok.  A few days later our 'mechanic' came in and said verbatim "Well I got that truck half fixed, it runs but barely." and like that it was back in service.......


----------

