California Law: Emergency Vehicle Exemption from Traffic Laws

  • Authorized Emergency Vehicle Exemption. Vehicle Code section 21055.

  • “Authorized Emergency Vehicle” Defined. Vehicle Code section 165.

  • Authorized Emergency Vehicle: Public Employee Immunity. Vehicle Code section 17004.

  • In order for emergency responders to be exempt from the rules of the road, including the speed limit, under Veh. Code, § 21055, they must be responding to an emergency call, they must sound a siren as may be reasonably necessary, and their vehicle must display a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning. However, as stated in Veh. Code, § 21056, § 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him or her from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.  Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, 164 Cal. App. 4th 248.

  • “The purpose of the statute is to provide a ‘clear and speedy pathway’ for these municipal vehicles on their flights to emergencies in which the entire public are necessarily concerned.” (Peerless Laundry Services v. City of Los Angeles (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 703, 707 [241 P.2d 269].)

  • Vehicle Code section 21056 provides: “Section 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.”

  • The law does not permit the police to drive with impunity from the moment they activate their sirens and flashing lights. Cal. Veh. Code § 21055 sets out a minimum standard of due care when it states that the drivers of authorized emergency vehicles are exempt if the vehicle sounds a siren and displays a lighted red lamp as a warning to other drivers. Cal. Veh. Code § 21056, however, provides that § 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.  Brummett v. County of Sacramento, 21 Cal. 3d 880

  • The standard of due care under Cal. Veh. Code §§ 21055, 21056 that an exempt driver must observe is that degree of care imposed by common law to immunize his public entity employer from liability under Cal. Veh. Code § 17001. Such a driver, operating his vehicle in the line of duty, must nonetheless drive in such a manner as would not impose upon others an unreasonable risk of harm. The question to be asked is what would a reasonable, prudent emergency driver do under all of the circumstances, including that of emergency.  Brummett v. County of Sacramento, 21 Cal. 3d 880
  • In personal injury lawsuits against a city and a police officer on behalf of two people who were injured in a traffic accident involving a police vehicle, the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury with Veh. Code, § 21055, which provides an exemption from liability for vehicles responding to an emergency call under certain situations, where the instructions contradicted explicit admissions made by defendants, and the evidence showed that the officer was exceeding the posted speed limit at the time of the accident, even though the officer was responding to a radio call that required him to obey all rules of the road, including the posted speed limit. Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, 164 Cal. App. 4th 248
  • “The effect of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is engaged in a specified emergency function he may violate certain rules of the road, such as speed and right of way laws, if he activates his red light and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation. In such circumstances the driver may not be held to be negligent solely upon the violation of specified rules of the road, but may be held to be negligent if he fails to exercise due regard for the safety of others under the circumstances. Where the driver of an emergency vehicle fails to activate his red light, and where necessary his siren, he is not exempt from the rules of the road even though he may be engaged in a proper emergency function, and negligence may be based upon the violation of the rules of the road.” (City of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 395, 402-403 [182 Cal.Rptr. 443], internal citations omitted.)

  • “Notwithstanding [Vehicle Code section 17004], a public entity is liable for injuries proximately caused by negligent acts or omissions in the operation of any motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity, acting within the scope of his or her employment.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 695, 698 [212 Cal.Rptr. 661], internal citations omitted.)

  • “If the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is responding to an emergency call and gives the prescribed warnings by red light and siren, a charge of negligence against him may not be predicated on his violation of the designated Vehicle Code sections; but if he does not give the warnings, the contrary is true; and in the event the charged negligence is premised on conduct without the scope of the exemption a common-law standard of care is applicable.” (Grant v. Petronella (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 281, 286 [123 Cal.Rptr. 399], internal citations omitted.)

  • “Where the driver of an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call does not give the warnings prescribed by section 21055, the legislative warning policy expressed in that section dictates the conclusion [that] the common-law standard of care governing his conduct does not include a consideration of the emergency circumstances attendant upon his response to an emergency call.” (Grant, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 289, footnote omitted.)

  • The exemption created by section 21055 is an affirmative defense, and the defendant must prove compliance with the conditions. (Washington v. City and County of San Francisco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 235, 242 [266 P.2d 828].)

  • “In short the statute exempts the employer of such a driver from liability for negligence attributable to his failure to comply with specified statutory provisions, but it does not in any manner purport to exempt the employer from liability due to negligence attributable to the driver’s failure to maintain that standard of care imposed by the common law.” (Torres v. City of Los Angeles (1962) 58 Cal.2d 35, 47 [22 Cal.Rptr. 866, 372 P.2d 906].)

Brad Nakase, Attorney

Call Brad: 888-600-8654


AVVO Clients’ Choice Award 2019

Justia Highest Rating Honor 10

AVVO Highest Rated Lawyer 10

We invite you to tell us your story.

1,359
© Copyright | Nakase Law Firm (2019)