Immunity for Municipal “Good Samaritan” Services: Interpreting “Gratuitous” in AS 09.65.070(d)(4)

Introduction

In John D. Rochon v. City of Nome, Allen Wright, and Jackie L. Reader, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed whether a municipality and its emergency‐responder employee are immune from suit under AS 09.65.070(d)(4) when they provide assistance beyond city limits without legal obligation and charge only standard fees. The plaintiff, John Rochon, was injured in a single‐vehicle accident 35 miles outside Nome’s municipal boundary. He sued the City of Nome and EMT Allen Wright, alleging negligent rescue that aggravated his injuries, and also brought a related action against a third party, Jackie L. Reader. The City and EMT moved for summary judgment on the ground that their extraterritorial rescue was a “gratuitous extension of municipal services,” and after prevailing they sought attorney’s fees under Civil Rule 68 for an unaccepted pretrial offer of judgment. The Court affirmed both the grant of summary judgment and the fee award.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Alaska, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Carney (No. 7765; May 2, 2025), held that:

Under AS 09.65.070(d)(4), municipalities and their agents are immune from suits “based on the exercise or performance during the course of gratuitous extension of municipal services on an extraterritorial basis.”
“Gratuitous” in this context means services performed without any legal obligation and without charging more than the municipality’s standard in‐city fee schedule.
The City of Nome had no duty to rescue Rochon 35 miles outside its boundaries and the ambulance fee charged ($725 plus $15 per mile) was the same whether inside or outside city limits—thus the rescue was “gratuitous” and immune.
The City and Wright’s pretrial offer of $7,500 under Civil Rule 68 was valid and Rochon’s rejection entitled them to recover a portion of their attorney’s fees, which the superior court awarded in the amount of $16,133.25.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a combination of Alaska and out‐of‐state authority to interpret AS 09.65.070(d)(4):

State v. Jennings and Adams v. State (1976): Held that municipalities could be liable for negligent fire inspections, leading to a legislative response due to reduced municipal services.
Lane v. City of Juneau (2018): Reaffirmed that AS 09.65.070(d) is not a forfeiture statute and applied the traditional sliding‐scale approach to statutory interpretation.
City of Attalla v. Dean Sausage Co. (Ala. Ct. App. 2003): Construed “gratuitous” to mean “without obligation,” a decision the Alaska Court found persuasive in light of the Good Samaritan principle.
Various Good Samaritan cases from other jurisdictions (e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Utah) that immunize rescuers when they act voluntarily and in good faith without a duty to act.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s statutory‐interpretation analysis progressed through three stages:

Plain Meaning: Dictionaries define “gratuitous” both as “without cost” and as “without legal obligation.” Because the term is ambiguous, the Court turned to statutory context and legislative history.
Contextual Construction: AS 09.65.070(d) has six subsections immunizing municipalities for various discretionary or voluntary acts. Subsection (4) stands alongside immunities for discretionary functions, licensing decisions, enhanced‐911 operations, and failure‐to‐inspect claims—none of which depend on the absence of a fee. This context points to voluntariness (“without legal obligation”) rather than “free of charge.”
Legislative History & Purpose: In 1977 the legislature added subsection (d) to prevent curtailment of municipal services after costly inspection‐liability cases. The sponsor’s memo described the amendment as applying “the Good Samaritan principle” to encourage municipalities to render out‐of‐boundary services without fear of tort liability. A definition based only on “no additional charge” would undermine that purpose by penalizing mileage or other standardized fees.

Impact

This decision clarifies that Alaska municipalities enjoy statutory immunity when they voluntarily extend emergency or other municipal services beyond their boundaries, provided they charge only their standard in‐city rate and have no contractual or legal duty to serve the area. Key implications include:

Good Samaritan Incentive: Municipalities can be confident that voluntary rescues or services outside city limits will not expose them to negligence suits, so long as they apply their existing fee schedule.
Fee Structures: Charging mileage or usage fees that are built into the standard ordinance does not strip immunity; municipalities need not offer services for free.
Litigation Strategy: Public entities will continue to deploy Civil Rule 68 offers of judgment to limit exposure and may recover attorney’s fees if offers are more favorable than outcomes.
Policy Considerations: The decision underscores legislative intent to prevent service withdrawal in rural and remote areas, where extraterritorial responses are common and vital.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Municipal Immunity (Sovereign vs. Local): Common‐law sovereign immunity protects governments from suit without consent. Municipal immunity specifically shields cities from certain tort claims, now codified in AS 09.65.070.
“Gratuitous” Services: In AS 09.65.070(d)(4), “gratuitous” means voluntary services for which the city is under no duty—rather than “free of charge.”
Extraterritorial Basis: Actions taken outside a municipality’s legal boundaries—e.g., responding to a crash 35 miles away.
Civil Rule 68 Offers of Judgment: A device to encourage settlement. If a plaintiff rejects a Rule 68 offer and recovers 90% (or less) of that amount at trial, the plaintiff must pay a portion of the defendant’s post‐offer attorney’s fees.

Conclusion

Rochon v. City of Nome establishes that AS 09.65.070(d)(4) protects municipalities and their agents when they voluntarily provide municipal services beyond city limits without legal obligation and at their standard rates. It affirms the Good Samaritan purpose of the statute and clarifies that mileage or usage fees do not defeat immunity. The decision also reinforces the strategic value of Civil Rule 68 offers in public‐entity litigation. Going forward, Alaska municipalities can extend emergency and other services extraterritorially with assurance that they will not be subject to suit for ordinary negligence in the absence of a binding obligation.