# Ambulance Crash Injures Paramedics



## MariaCatEMT (Aug 20, 2004)

*Ambulance crash injures paramedics

DETROIT -- Two paramedics were injured after a pickup truck crashed into their ambulance early Tuesday morning. 

The ambulance was responding to a call at about 2:45 a.m. on Detroit's west side when a pickup truck heading in the wrong direction crashed into the vehicle. The ambulance was driving east on Milford and the pickup truck was driving north on Northfield, which is a one-way street, Local 4 reported.  

The impact caused the ambulance to flip on its side. Firefighters reportedly had to cut the windshield to free the paramedics from the ambulance. 

READ MORE*


----------



## rescuecpt (Aug 20, 2004)

About 10 years ago my boyfriend's sister and his best friend were t-boned while responding to a call, lights and sirens.  Someone ran a stop sign, t-boned them, and flipped the ambulance 2 times.  The EMT's had to be extricated and spent a couple days in the hospital... and surprise surprise, the other driver sued the ambulance corps and won.  Go figure.


----------



## MariaCatEMT (Aug 20, 2004)

*



The EMT's had to be extricated and spent a couple days in the hospital... and surprise surprise, the other driver sued the ambulance corps and won. Go figure.

Click to expand...



WOW! That's terrible! I'm assuming they were okay and everything. What was the basis for the suit?*


----------



## MMiz (Aug 20, 2004)

Living about 20 minutes north of Detroit, I saw this on TV.  The drivers were removed through the front windshield I believe.

It's hard seeing any ambulance collision, but I understand both were wearing seatbelts.


----------



## rescuecpt (Aug 21, 2004)

The lawsuit was based on the fact that they didn't use "due caution"... they slowed, but did not stop at the stop sign because there was no oncoming traffic - or should not have been, since the other car had not yet reached the intersection, and if it had stopped at the sign as it should have, there would have been no collision.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rescuelt_@Aug 21 2004, 12:44 PM
> * The lawsuit was based on the fact that they didn't use "due caution"... they slowed, but did not stop at the stop sign because there was no oncoming traffic - or should not have been, since the other car had not yet reached the intersection, and if it had stopped at the sign as it should have, there would have been no collision. *


 So basically, they got sued because they ran the stop sign first?!?!


----------



## rescuecpt (Aug 22, 2004)

> *So basically, they got sued because they ran the stop sign first?!?!
> *



Yeah, go figure.

You know if the call was at that guy's house and they took too long getting there because they made full stops even when there was no (or shouldn't have been) any other traffic in the intersection, he would have given them hell for taking too long...


----------

