1. There is no such thing as an "extreme" duty of care. The standard of care in this context is that which is considered acceptable medical treatment by reasonably prudent health care professionals under like or similar circumstances.
2. There is actually nothing in the article to indicate that he was "wacky" or that anyone was on notice about that. You just made that up. In fact, they were on notice that a drunk dude passed out in front of his neighbor's house.
3. You may have a personal opinion that it is foreseeable that drunk people will try to jump out of cars. Oddly enough, your opinion would be make a designated driver liable whenever one of their passengers decides to open the door and jump. I'm not aware of any such case, and it's probably for a number of reasons including the reason that you might just be alone in your opinion that drunkenness foreseeably leads to jumping out of moving vehicles. Does alcohol make you want to jump out of things? Certainly doesn't do that to me
4. At any rate, your personal opinion that it was foreseeable that he would jump out of a speeding ambulance does not make my personal opinion that someone who voluntarily gets so drunk that they feel like jumping out of speeding vehicles should not be entitled to recover anything on the ground that they knowingly created and accepted a risk that they would do something monumentally stupid.
5. I don't know how on Earth he managed to jump out unless they were all facing the other direction and staring at iphones. But see #4. It's like getting drunk, wrestling a bear, and then your estate sues the booze manufacturer for warning that liquor might make you stupid, then sues the owner of the land for not warning about the dangers of bear wrestling.
It'd be nice to see some restraints on our lawsuit-crazy nation. We cannot force people to embrace personal responsibility, but least we can make it harder to profit from dismissing it.
First, it's not MY "assumption of risk theory"; it's an age-old standard that used to be in the common law in every state. These days, most have shifted to comparative fault schemes when it comes to determining damages.
Second, an attorney would know that and so an attorney would understand what I'm saying, even if they don't want a return of assumption of the risk. Google "assumption of the risk" for more detail. It used to be used a little too broadly, in my opinion, but I think it's perfect for a case where a person behaves like this guy.
I simply do not think a person should be allowed to get utterly blasted, do something stupid, and then sue whomever was in the vicinity of the stupidity for failing to stop it.
All of which makes me wonder: would you be willing to vote to acquit someone of first degree murder because their defense was that they voluntarily got so drunk that they could not form the specific intent to commit murder?