If you're a volunteer firefighter in South Dakota the Supreme Court is considering a case that could affect you.
On Wednesday justices heard arguments in a lawsuit involving a Chester volunteer firefighter who was driving more than 80 miles per hour when he got into a crash in his personal pick-up truck responding to a fire call.
"I want them to get to the fire but I don't want them to kill anybody," Peter Bendorf said.
Bendorf is the attorney for Areyman Gabriel, a Sioux Falls man who was hit by Chester volunteer firefighter Tim Bauman.
Bauman hit Gabriel at an intersection north of Chester in 2007 while speeding to a mobile home fire.
"The page indicated there were children present but their parents were not home. Clearly Bauman was responding to a serious emergency situation," Bauman's attorney Lisa Prostrollo argued Wednesday.
Gabriel had made a left hand turn in front of Bauman as he came over a hill and approached the intersection. Bauman's attorney says he's protected by South Dakota's Good Samaritan laws. A lower court agreed and threw out the lawsuit.
"The legislature enacted the Good Samaritan statute for an important reason. It intended to protect those citizens who were seeking to render emergency aid," Prostrollo said.
Gabriel's attorney is appealing the decision to throw out the lawsuit arguing that Bauman was driving his personal vehicle recklessly at more than twice the posted speed limit on the way to the call. He says Bauman should be held responsible for the damage caused by the crash.
"He stayed at 81 miles per hour through a 40 mile per hour zone with stopped traffic on his left and a residential area on his right,” Bendorf said. "Let's supposed Gabriel didn't turn and that he maintained his speed. Was he still reckless? I believe that falls under the meaning of criminal recklessness," Bendorf said.
It will now be up to the five justices to determine if Bauman was reckless, or doing everything he could to respond to an emergency call.
It could take weeks or months for the justices to make a final ruling in the case.