Under the rescue doctrine a public entity has a special duty to exercise reasonable care after assuming a duty to warn or come to the aid of a particular plaintiff.[1] That special duty exists because a public entity’s assurances may induce reliance. A person who voluntarily promises to perform a service for another in need has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the promise induces reliance and causes the promise to refrain from seeking help elsewhere.[2]
A person may reasonably rely on explicit or implicit assurances. “Even where an offer to seek or render aid is implicit and unspoken, a duty to make good on the promise has been found by most courts if it is reasonably relied upon.”[3]
The rescue doctrine may not apply if the rescue is not gratuitous but is instead part of the duty for which the government agency was created.[4]
[1] Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257, 753 P.2d 523 (1987).
[2] Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998).
[3] Brown v. MacPherson’s, Inc., 86 Wn.2d 293, 301, 545 P.2d 13 (1975).
[4] Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 30 P.3d 1261 (2001). (Firefighters not liable for preventing homeowners from re-entering their homes and removing personal belongings.)