Last vehicle in chain reaction collision can make a submissible case against drivers in front of him for stopping without adequate warning.  David Kasper, et ux., Appellants v. Randall W. Welhoff, et al., Respondents, No. 69329 (Mo. App. W.D., September 8, 2009), Ahuja, J.

Plaintiff was the last car in a chain reaction collision of five vehicles.  This occurred on a two lane road and the group of vehicles were traveling southbound when the lead vehicle suddenly stopped, then made a left turn.  All the other vehicles got stopped except the rear vehicle which ran into the rear of the vehicle in front of him and in the end, all four vehicles were involved.  The court granted Defendants a Summary Judgment on the basis of Plaintiff's testimony that as he was following the other cars, he glanced in his rearview mirror at a dump truck and then when he looked back, the vehicle in front of him had his brake lights on but he was unable to stop before striking that vehicle.

The court determined that it was possible under those circumstances for Plaintiff to make a submissible case against the vehicles in front of him for stopping without giving adequate warning even though his attention was elsewhere for a very short time. 

Editor:
Keith A. Cutler, Esquire

City-owned ambulance services are protected by sovereign immunity, and their EMTs are protected by official immunity. Lee Richardson, as wife of Stanford Richardson, Sr., Deceased, Appellant v. City of St. Louis and Bryan Burrow, Respondents, No. 91995 (Mo. App. E.D., September 22, 2009), Cohen, J.

Decedent went into respiratory distress and the city-owned ambulance service was called. Upon responding, one of the EMTs erroneously placed an endotracheal tube in Decedent's esophagus instead of his trachea, causing him to suffer a brain injury resulting in death. Decedent's widow brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the ambulance service and against the EMT. The ambulance service filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity; the EMT filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of official immunity. Both motions were granted and Plaintiff appealed.

Held: Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The court of appeals went through the traditional sovereign immunity analysis applicable to municipalities, weighing whether the ambulance service was being operated as part of the City's proprietary function (not protected by sovereign immunity), or as part of the City's governmental function (protected by sovereign immunity). Because providing an ambulance service serves to safeguard and preserve the public health, the court determined, in this case of first impression, that such was a governmental function. Therefore, the ambulance service was protected by sovereign immunity. The court rejected Plaintiff's argument that, because it charged a fee to customers, the ambulance service was a part of the City's proprietary function. With respect to the EMT, Plaintiff argued that EMTs should be treated as are doctors in state-run medical facilities, who do not enjoy official immunity. However, the court likened EMTs to police officers who are required to make split-second decisions in emergency situations, which is the type of circumstance in which official immunity is intended to provide protection. "In short, we conclude that on a case-by-case basis, application of official immunity to the conduct of an EMT may be appropriate."