Authorized emergency vehicles include any “fire department, police department, sheriff’s office, coroner, prosecuting attorney, Washington state patrol, ambulance service… or any other vehicle authorized in writing by the state patrol.” A vehicle routinely used to escort funeral processions and specially equipped in conformance with statutory requirements may be considered a de facto emergency vehicle even in the absence of written approval by the state patrol. Boyle v. Emerson, 17 Wn.App. 101, 104, 561 P.2d 1110 (1977).
The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected law violator is given right-of-way driving privileges by statute. Boyle v. Emerson, 17 Wn.App. 101, 561 P.2d 1110 (1977); RCW 46.61.035. These privileges include the right to (a) park or stand without regard to traffic restrictions; (b) go through a red light or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; (e) exceed speed limits, as long as the driver does not endanger life or property; and (d) disregard directional or turning restrictions. RCW 46.61.035(2). Lakoduk v. Cruger, 48 Wn.2d 642, 658, 296 P.2d 690 (1956)(Lack of actual emergency but reasonable basis to believe an emergency exists).
For the driver to enjoy emergency right-of-way driving privileges, the vehicle must be specially equipped with such items as sirens and lights in conformance with statutory specifications. RCW 46.37.184; RCW 46.37.190; RCW 46.37.380; RCW 46.61.035; RCW 46.61.210.
Whether the statutory privileges apply is usually a question of law. WPI 71.01.
The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle even when acting within the scope of emergency privileges must do so “with due regard for the safety of all persons.” RCW 46.61.035(4). The standard of care is the same as the traditional standard of care—i.e., whether, within the context of statutory privileges, the driver acted as a reasonably careful driver with due regard to the safety of others. Brown v. Spokane County Fire Prot. Dist. No.1, 100 Wn.2d 188, 193, 668 P.2d 571 (1983); WPI71.01.
The lack of due regard may be found even where the collision involves only non-emergency vehicles. Mason v. Bitton, 85 Wn.2d 321,534 P.2d 1360 (1975). In Mason, authorities chased a speed violator who then collided with a third vehicle. The Washington Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in favor of the police and state patrol holding that there was a material issue of fact as to whether the police and/or state patrol should have called off their chase.
Motorists are required upon the immediate approach of an emergency vehicle using lights and sirens to drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge of the curb or roadway. RCW 46.61.210. The duty attaches when the driver knows or should have known of the emergency vehicle’s approach. City of Seattle v. Lough, 45 Wn.2d286, 273 P.2d984(1954); Grabosv. Loudin, 60 Wn.2d 634,374 P.2d 673 (1962). Whether a driver negligently failed to comply with the statutory duty is a jury question where there are material issues of fact. Hadley v. Arms & Scott, 136Wash. 632, 241 P. 26 (1925).