public duty doctrine in Washington

2022There are several exceptions to the public duty doctrine, which are “used as ‘focusing tools’ to determine whether the public entity had a duty to the injured plaintiff.” Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 218 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992).

2022There are several exceptions to the public duty doctrine, which are “used as ‘focusing tools’ to determine whether the public entity had a duty to the injured plaintiff.” Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 218 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992).

2021The public duty doctrine serves as a “focusing tool used to determine whether” a defendant government owes “‘a duty to a “nebulous public” or a particular individual.’” Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’ns Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012) (quoting Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18, 27 , 134 P.3d 197 (2006) (quoting Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 166 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988))).

2021The public duty doctrine serves as a “focusing tool used to determine whether” a defendant government owes “‘a duty to a “nebulous public” or a particular individual.’” Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’ns Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012) (quoting Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18, 27 , 134 P.3d 197 (2006) (quoting Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 166 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988))).

2025The exception “allows tort actions for negligent performance of public duties if the plaintiff can prove circumstances 8 Neither party argues whether the public duty doctrine applies. 16 No. 60121-4-II setting his or her relationship with the government apart from that of the general public.” Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844, 854 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006).

2022Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 193 Wn.2d 537 , 549 n.7, 442 P.3d 608 (2019); 5 see also Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844 , 853 n.7, 133 P.3d 458 (2006). 5 Beltran-Serrano noted the public duty doctrine does not lessen the government’s duty of reasonable care in direct interactions with others, specifically law enforcement’s “duty to refrain from directly causing harm to another through affirmative acts of misfeasance.” Id. at 550 . -5- No. 82897-5-I/6 A. Whether the County Has a Duty Based on a Special Relationship Ghodsee first argues the County owed him an individualized duty akin

2026A Van Leeuwen argues the superior court erred in dismissing his complaint because the City owed a common law duty to enforce leash laws and because the public duty doctrine does not apply to delegated contractual duties owed by the City.2 “Municipal corporations are liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their employees, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation.” Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’n Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012) (citing RCW 4.96.010(1)).

2026A Van Leeuwen argues the superior court erred in dismissing his complaint because the City owed a common law duty to enforce leash laws and because the public duty doctrine does not apply to delegated contractual duties owed by the City.2 “Municipal corporations are liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their employees, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation.” Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’n Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012) (citing RCW 4.96.010(1)).

2013Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299, 303-04 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983) (“a duty to all is a duty to no one”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988) and Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988). ¶48 The public duty doctrine has exceptions.

2013Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299, 303-04 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983) (“a duty to all is a duty to no one”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988) and Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988). ¶48 The public duty doctrine has exceptions.

2020Our precedent recognizes “four exceptions to the public duty doctrine that provide for liability even in the face of otherwise public duties.” Id.

2020No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001). 2In Phillips v. King County, our Supreme Court recognized, in dicta, that situations could arise where a municipality may be liable for a failure to maintain a public drainage system, and the use of county controlled property for the building of part of a drainage system may give rise to liability on the part of a municipality. 136 Wn.2d 946, 966-69 , 968 P.2d 871 (1998). -7- No. 80002-7-I/8 There are four recognized exceptions to the public duty doctrine under which the government acquires a duty of care owed to a particular individual (1) wher

2022While similar to sovereign immunity, the public duty doctrine uniquely “recognizes the existence of a tort, authorizes the filing of a claim against a [government entity] and also recognizes applicable liability subject to some limitations.” Id.

2015If application of the public duty doctrine revealed that a mandated duty was owed the public in general, then a breach of that duty would not give rise to liability in tort—a principle that prompted the proverb, "'a duty to all is a duty to no one.'" Munich, 175 Wn.2d at 889-90 (Chambers, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Meanev v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 , 759 P.2d 455 (1988)); cl Babcock v. Mason Countv Fire Dist.

2012See Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 217-19 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992); Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999) (both cases disposed of the public duty doctrine defense on claims of negligent supervision of probationers based upon duties established in Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421 , 671 P.2d 230 (1983)); see also Aha Sheikh, 156 Wn.2d at 454 (treated both public duty doctrine and common law claims under traditional public policy approach).

2010Drawing the line accurately, however, would be impeded by accepting Seattle's rigid framework wherein the duty of a governmental actor is determined solely by resort to the public duty doctrine and the four recognized exceptions. ¶ 26 Exceptions to the public duty doctrine `generally embody traditional negligence principles.' Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 28 , 134 P.3d 197 , quoting Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999).

2012See Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 217-19 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992); Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999) (both cases disposed of the public duty doctrine defense on claims of negligent supervision of probationers based upon duties established in Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421 , 671 P.2d 230 (1983)); see also Aha Sheikh, 156 Wn.2d at 454 (treated both public duty doctrine and common law claims under traditional public policy approach).

2010Drawing the line accurately, however, would be impeded by accepting Seattle's rigid framework wherein the duty of a governmental actor is determined solely by resort to the public duty doctrine and the four recognized exceptions. ¶ 26 Exceptions to the public duty doctrine `generally embody traditional negligence principles.' Osborn, 157 Wash.2d at 28 , 134 P.3d 197 , quoting Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999).

2014We first address Hyytinen' s federal due process claim, then 5 For a discussion of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, see Bailey v. Town ofForks, 108 Wn.2d 262 , 268 -69, 737 P. 2d 1257 ( 1987), amended by 753 P.2d 523 ( 1988). 18 No. 45117 -4 -II consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to add the state law claims.

2014We first address Hyytinen' s federal due process claim, then 5 For a discussion of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, see Bailey v. Town ofForks, 108 Wn.2d 262 , 268 -69, 737 P. 2d 1257 ( 1987), amended by 753 P.2d 523 ( 1988). 18 No. 45117 -4 -II consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to add the state law claims.

2021Until the court’s decision in Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451 (1983), he wrote, “the principles that would ultimately become known as the public duty doctrine were primarily applied only when the court first found some type of duty annunciated in a statute or code.” Cummins, 156 Wn.2d at 864 .

2021Until the court’s decision in Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451 (1983), he wrote, “the principles that would ultimately become known as the public duty doctrine were primarily applied only when the court first found some type of duty annunciated in a statute or code.” Cummins, 156 Wn.2d at 864 .

2019The legislative intent exception to the public duty doctrine applies where a “statute by its terms evidences a clear legislative intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.” Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 188 , 759 P.2d 1188 (1988).

2019The legislative intent exception to the public duty doctrine applies where a “statute by its terms evidences a clear legislative intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.” Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 188 , 759 P.2d 1188 (1988).

2025The exception “allows tort actions for negligent performance of public duties if the plaintiff can prove circumstances 8 Neither party argues whether the public duty doctrine applies. 16 No. 60121-4-II setting his or her relationship with the government apart from that of the general public.” Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844, 854 , 133 P.3d 458 (2006).

2022Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 193 Wn.2d 537 , 549 n.7, 442 P.3d 608 (2019); 5 see also Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844 , 853 n.7, 133 P.3d 458 (2006). 5 Beltran-Serrano noted the public duty doctrine does not lessen the government’s duty of reasonable care in direct interactions with others, specifically law enforcement’s “duty to refrain from directly causing harm to another through affirmative acts of misfeasance.” Id. at 550 . -5- No. 82897-5-I/6 A. Whether the County Has a Duty Based on a Special Relationship Ghodsee first argues the County owed him an individualized duty akin

2020See, e.g., Beal v. City of Seattle 134 Wn.2d 769 , 786 954 P.2d 237 (1998) (holding that the “special relationship” exception to the public duty doctrine applied when a 911 caller justifiably relied on communication from a public official, and that justifiable reliance is a question of fact generally not amenable to summary judgment).

2015No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001); Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 784 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). ¶55 There are four exceptions to the public duty doctrine: (1) legislative intent, (2) failure to enforce, (3) the rescue doctrine, and (4) a special relationship.

2012See id. ¶34 Because the legislature had declared that governments were to be liable for their tortious conduct just like private persons or corporations, the public duty doctrine was not applied to duties that governments had in common with private persons.

1997The public duty doctrine does not apply where the Legislature enacts legislation specifically for the protection of persons of the plaintiffs class and the plaintiff shows " 'culpable neglect regarding, or indifference to’ violations of the building code.” Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 165 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988) (quoting Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 678 , 574 P.2d 1190 (1978)). " '[Liability can be founded upon a municipal code if that code by its terms evidences a clear intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.’ ” Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 164 (q

2026“The public duty doctrine applies only to claims based on an alleged breach of ‘special governmental 6 No. 87904-9-I/7 obligations [that] are imposed by statute or ordinance.’ ” Norg, 200 Wn.2d at 758 (alteration in original) (quoting Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 193 W.2d 537 , 549, 442 P.3d 608 (2019)).

2026While “an enumerated exception is not always necessary to find that a duty is owed to an individual and not to the public at large,” Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 193 Wn.2d 537 , 549, 442 P.3d 608 (2019), the public duty doctrine essentially asks “whether the government owes a duty to particular individuals.” Ehrhart v. King County, 195 Wn.2d 388 , 400, 460 P.3d 612 (2020).

2006See Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 255 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965). 111 Wash.2d 182 , 187 n. 1, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988). [19] See also Baerlein v. State, 92 Wash.2d 229 , 595 P.2d 930 (1979) (state securities regulations did not create a duty to protect individual investors). ¶ 59 Accordingly, we hold that the failure-to-enforce exception to the public duty doctrine does not apply under the facts of this case.

2006See Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wn.2d 246, 255 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965). 111 Wn.2d 182 , 187 n.1, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988). 19 See also Baerlein, 92 Wn.2d 229 (state securities regulations did not create a duty to protect individual investors). ¶59 Accordingly, we hold that the failure-to-enforce exception to the public duty doctrine does not apply under the facts of this case.

2008Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 929 . ¶16 The trial court found no exception to the public duty doctrine and, therefore, the Hannums’ claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress failed. ¶17 The Hannums assert that RCW 46.20.041 demonstrates the legislature’s intent to protect persons who may have a mental or physical disability or disease that affects their ability to drive by providing these persons with notice and an opportunity to respond.

2006The public duty doctrine does not bar a plaintiff’s action if a regulatory statute or code provision “evidences a clear legislative intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.” Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 929 , 969 P.2d 75 (1998).

2014We first address Hyytinen' s federal due process claim, then 5 For a discussion of the exceptions to the public duty doctrine, see Bailey v. Town ofForks, 108 Wn.2d 262 , 268 -69, 737 P. 2d 1257 ( 1987), amended by 753 P.2d 523 ( 1988). 18 No. 45117 -4 -II consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to add the state law claims.

2013Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268 , 737 P.2d 1257 , 753 P.2d 523 (1987) (summarizing the four commonly cited exceptions to the public duty doctrine).

2022This doctrine balances the rights of an injured plaintiff with the need to limit governmental liability “[b]ecause governments, unlike private persons, are tasked with duties that are not legal duties within the meaning of tort law.” See Washburn, 178 Wn.2d at 753 , see also Osborn, 157 Wn.2d at 28 (“the public duty doctrine helps us distinguish proper legal duties from mere hortatory ‘duties.’”).

2021The public duty doctrine serves as a “focusing tool used to determine whether” a defendant government owes “‘a duty to a “nebulous public” or a particular individual.’” Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’ns Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012) (quoting Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18, 27 , 134 P.3d 197 (2006) (quoting Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 166 , 759 P.2d 447 (1988))).

2020No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001). 2In Phillips v. King County, our Supreme Court recognized, in dicta, that situations could arise where a municipality may be liable for a failure to maintain a public drainage system, and the use of county controlled property for the building of part of a drainage system may give rise to liability on the part of a municipality. 136 Wn.2d 946, 966-69 , 968 P.2d 871 (1998). -7- No. 80002-7-I/8 There are four recognized exceptions to the public duty doctrine under which the government acquires a duty of care owed to a particular individual (1) wher

2015No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001); Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 784 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). ¶55 There are four exceptions to the public duty doctrine: (1) legislative intent, (2) failure to enforce, (3) the rescue doctrine, and (4) a special relationship.

2020See, e.g., Beal v. City of Seattle 134 Wn.2d 769 , 786 954 P.2d 237 (1998) (holding that the “special relationship” exception to the public duty doctrine applied when a 911 caller justifiably relied on communication from a public official, and that justifiable reliance is a question of fact generally not amenable to summary judgment).

2015No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785 , 30 P.3d 1261 (2001); Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 784 , 954 P.2d 237 (1998)). ¶55 There are four exceptions to the public duty doctrine: (1) legislative intent, (2) failure to enforce, (3) the rescue doctrine, and (4) a special relationship.

2025“The policy behind the public duty doctrine is that legislation for the public benefit should not be discouraged by subjecting the government to unlimited liability for individual damages.” Donohoe v. State, 135 Wn.

2025“The policy behind the public duty doctrine is that legislation for the public benefit should not be discouraged by subjecting the government to unlimited liability for individual damages.” Donohoe v. State, 135 Wn.

2012See Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 217-19 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992); Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999) (both cases disposed of the public duty doctrine defense on claims of negligent supervision of probationers based upon duties established in Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421 , 671 P.2d 230 (1983)); see also Aha Sheikh, 156 Wn.2d at 454 (treated both public duty doctrine and common law claims under traditional public policy approach).

2012See Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 217-19 , 822 P.2d 243 (1992); Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518, 530 , 973 P.2d 465 (1999) (both cases disposed of the public duty doctrine defense on claims of negligent supervision of probationers based upon duties established in Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421 , 671 P.2d 230 (1983)); see also Aha Sheikh, 156 Wn.2d at 454 (treated both public duty doctrine and common law claims under traditional public policy approach).

1990They argue that the "failure to enforce" exception to the public duty doctrine existed for several years prior to our decision in Coffel , at least since Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975).

1990They argue that the "failure to enforce" exception to the public duty doctrine existed for several years prior to our decision in Coffel , at least since Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1 , 530 P.2d 234 (1975).