429 P.3d 484
Wash.2018Background
- Five children were placed with the Hamricks as foster children (1998–2003); DSHS retained legal custody while foster parents provided day-to-day care.
- During the preadoption foster-care period, evidence showed physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by the Hamricks; some DSHS social workers failed to perform required health-and-safety visits for lengthy periods.
- After adoption, various referrals to CPS and law enforcement occurred; a criminal investigation in 2011 led to removal and prosecution of Drew Ann Hamrick.
- Plaintiffs sued DSHS for negligence for failing to protect them during the preadoption foster-care period; trial court granted DSHS's CR 50 motion dismissing those claims, and the jury later returned a defense verdict on remaining claims.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding DSHS owed a common-law protective duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315(b); the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding DSHS stands in a special relationship to foster children, creating a duty to use reasonable care to protect them, and remanded for trial on preadoption claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSHS owes a common-law duty to protect foster children from third-party (foster-parent) abuse | DSHS, as legal custodian entrusted with child welfare, has a § 315(b) "special relationship" with foster children and thus a duty to protect from foreseeable harm | No special relationship exists because DSHS lacks day-to-day physical custody/control of the children; entrustment to foster parents precludes a § 315(b) duty | Yes: DSHS stands in a § 315(b) special protective relationship with foster children and owes a duty to use reasonable care to protect them from foreseeable harm |
| Whether recognizing this duty judicially abrogates the State's sovereign immunity | Plaintiffs: waiver of sovereign immunity (RCW 4.92.090) exposes the State to tort liability akin to a private actor; accountability supports a common-law duty | DSHS: imposing a common-law duty intrudes on sovereign immunity and would judicially expand liability beyond statutory scheme | No conflict: Washington broadly waived sovereign immunity; recognizing a common-law § 315(b) duty is consistent with treating the State like a private actor for tort liability |
| Whether evidence at trial was sufficient to submit breach and proximate-cause questions to a jury | Failures to perform required health-and-safety visits, especially a year without visits, supported an inference of breach and causation (disclosure and intervention likely) | DSHS: plaintiffs’ causation theory is speculative and insufficient for a jury | Sufficient evidence existed to create jury questions on breach and causation; CR 50 dismissal was erroneous as to preadoption claims |
| Proper scope/foundation of § 315(b) special relationship — custody vs entrustment/vulnerability | Special relationship depends on entrustment and vulnerability; physical custody is not required where the State retains legal custody and places children with agents (foster parents) | Special relationship should require physical custody/control; expanding § 315(b) to entrustment is unprecedented and unpredictable | Entrustment and vulnerability suffice; statutes and precedent support treating DSHS as legal custodian with a protective duty under § 315(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Braam v. State, 150 Wash.2d 689 (Wash. 2003) (State as custodian must provide conditions free of unreasonable risk to foster children)
- Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wash.2d 68 (Wash. 2000) (discussing tort accountability for governmental entities)
- Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wash.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (special-relationship doctrine and duty to protect vulnerable residents)
- Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wash.2d 217 (Wash. 1991) (innkeeper duty to protect guests from criminal acts of third parties)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (state custody contexts can give rise to affirmative protective duties)
- M.W. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 149 Wash.2d 589 (Wash. 2003) (distinguishing narrow statutory negligent-investigation claim from potential common-law duties)
- Petersen v. State, 100 Wash.2d 421 (Wash. 1983) (special-relationship framework borrowing Restatement § 315)
- Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner, 133 Wash.2d 192 (Wash. 1997) (business invitee entrustment and duty to protect)
- Caulfield v. Kitsap County, 108 Wash.App. 242 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (county’s placement/monitoring of a disabled adult created a protective duty)
- McLeod v. Grant County Sch. Dist. No. 128, 42 Wash.2d 316 (Wash. 1953) (school duty to protect students from anticipated dangers)