Avellaneda v. State
273 P.3d 477
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Flor Avellaneda was seriously injured when two cars crossed the SR 512 median and struck her vehicle; no cable barrier was in place at the time.
- Plaintiffs allege WSDOT negligently failed to timely install a cable barrier on SR 512.
- WSDOT used a priority programming framework under RCW 47.05.010 to rank median barrier projects by benefit/cost ratios for budgeting.
- WSDOT initially assigned SR 512 a zero benefit/cost ratio and later, after combining with another SR 512 segment, improved its priority; funds for SR 512 were eventually requested and appropriated.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the State on discretionary immunity and found no genuine issue of material fact on negligent delay once funding was available.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling the decision to exclude SR 512 from the priority array was protected by discretionary immunity and that there was no material fact showing unreasonable delay in implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of SR 512 from the priority array is immune | Avellaneda contends the exclusion was not discretionary immunity | Avellaneda argues the decision involved policy but not immunity | Exclusion qualifies as discretionary immunity |
| Whether there are material facts showing negligent delay after funding | Delays after funding suggest negligent implementation | No genuine issue of material fact; decisions were discretionary and timely | No genuine issue of material fact; no negligent delay shown |
| Whether benefit/cost calculation for SR 512 was a discretionary act | Calculation was ministerial and not protected | Calculation is part of decision-making involving policy evaluation | Calculation protected as part of discretionary decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Evangelical United Brethren Church of Adna v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246 (1965) (four-factor Evangelical discretionary immunity test)
- Stewart v. State, 92 Wash.2d 285 (1979) (design/decision relates to essential policy, not negligent implementation)
- Taggart v. State, 118 Wash.2d 195 (1992) (discretionary immunity is narrow, applies to policy, not operational acts)
- Jenson v. Scribner, 57 Wash.App. 478 (1990) (data collection part of decision-making; discretionary immunity applies)
- McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, 125 Wash.2d 1 (1994) (separation of powers; budgeting decisions immunized)
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. State, 669 P.2d 561 (Alaska 1983) (planning-level decision immunized; avoid judicial intrusion into policy)
- Julius Rothschild & Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 877 (Haw. 1982) (planning-level vs. operational decisions; protect budgetary choices)
- Ruff v. King County, 125 Wash.2d 697 (1995) (no special duty to upgrade existing roads; budget/plan decisions immune)
- SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, 168 Wash.2d 593 (2010) (allocation of limited state funds is political and within executive prerogative)
- Waples v. Yi, 169 Wash.2d 152 (2010) (separation of powers; budgetary decisions are protected)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (judicial restraint in review of political decisions)