Our Seattle injury attorney was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled that application of the public duty doctrine negated a claim against a fire district for the destruction of a partially constructed house and other property.[1] The same analysis applies to personal injury claims.
The plaintiffs lost a partially constructed home and personal property to a fire. They claimed the fire was started negligently by a fire fighter who started a backfire, a fire started to check an advancing fire by clearing an area, on the north side of the orchard. The backfire spread to and destroyed the landowners’ property.
The public duty doctrine insulates a governmental entity from liability for acts or omissions when the duty is one owed to the public at large, as opposed to a specific individual.
In Washington a governmental entity is not liable in negligence unless a plaintiff can show that the entity breached a duty that was owed to the plaintiff individually rather than the public in general.[2] There are exceptions: (1) legislative intent, (2) failure to enforce, (3) the rescue doctrine, and (4) a special relationship.[3] The public duty doctrine rests on the notion that a duty to the public in general is a duty to no one in particular, here, the Landowners.[4]
Duty is the first and essential step in any negligence analysis.[5] Whether or not a duty exists is a question of law.[6] The Landowners had to show a duty that the Fire Districts owed to them specifically and not to the public at large. Without that individualized duty, the courts will not analyze what errors the Fire Districts or its employees might have made.
The Landowners’ essential argument was that the public duty doctrine does not apply because the Fire Districts’ acts or omissions were operational rather than policy. The Court held that they did not address the threshold question of whether these Fire Districts had a duty to the Landowners, as opposed to the public at large.
The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of the claims.
[1] Pope v. Douglas County PUD et. al. (28379-8-III). Unpublished opinion.
[2] Vergeson v. Kitsap County, 145 Wn. App. 526, 534, 186 P.3d 1140 (2008).
[3] Id. at 537.
[4] J & B Dev. Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299, 304, 669 P.2d 468 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988).
[5] Rasmussen v. Bendotti, 107 Wn. App. 947, 955, 29 P.3d 56 (2001).
[6] Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18, 22-23, 134 P.3d 197 (2006).