387 P.3d 1093
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- Five children (initials used) were placed with and later adopted by the Hamricks; allegations of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse emerged years after preadoption placements and after adoptions.
- DSHS social workers performed periodic health and safety checks per agency policy; evidence suggested some required visits (particularly by worker Woolridge) may not have been made during the preadoption period.
- After postadoption reports and investigations beginning in 2008–2011, the children were removed and criminal investigations followed; plaintiffs sued DSHS for negligence in failing to investigate and protect the children.
- At trial the court granted the State’s CR 50 motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims tied to the preadoption period and a 2009 referral; it also excluded two late-disclosed witnesses and used a special verdict form that mixed apportionment for negligence and intentional acts.
- On appeal the court considered whether DSHS owed a common‑law duty of ordinary care to foster children (based on a special relationship of entrustment), whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence on breach and causation, and several trial‑procedure/evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSHS owes a common‑law duty of ordinary care to protect foster children (special relationship) | DSHS had a special protective relationship with foster children (entrustment) and thus a duty to exercise ordinary care (monitoring, health/safety checks) | Any duty is limited to the statutory duty under RCW 26.44.050 (negligent investigation) and DSHS had no broader tort duty | Held: DSHS owes a duty of ordinary care based on a special relationship of entrustment (reversing CR 50 dismissal on preadoption claims) |
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of breach during preadoption period | Failure to perform required health/safety checks (e.g., Woolridge) breached the duty | No legally sufficient evidence of breach or that any breach caused harm | Held: Sufficient evidence of breach and of causation (both fact and legal causation) to avoid CR 50; remanded for trial on those claims |
| Whether the special verdict form improperly asked the jury to apportion fault for intentional acts and negligence | Form conflated apportionment between intentional tortfeasors (the Hamricks) and negligence, which is improper | Form was permissible or harmless | Held: Trial court erred in submitting the form but error was harmless for the claims decided (unpublished portion) |
| Whether exclusion of two late‑disclosed witnesses and judge’s political remarks required reversal | Exclusion was improper and remarks created appearance of unfairness affecting trial fairness | Exclusion was a warranted sanction; remarks did not create unfairness | Held: Exclusion was error but harmless; judge’s remarks did not create appearance of unfairness; no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- Caulfield v. Kitsap County, 108 Wn. App. 242 (county case worker’s entrustment created special duty to protect vulnerable clients)
- Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39 (special relationship inquiry; entrustment and vulnerability give rise to duty)
- M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services, 149 Wn.2d 589 (statutory negligent‑investigation liability under chapter 26.44 RCW is limited to certain placements)
- Braam v. State, 150 Wn.2d 689 (foster children’s substantive due process right to safety; due process analysis distinct from tort duty)
- Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services, 141 Wn.2d 68 (proximate cause: cause in fact and legal causation framework)
- Wuthrich v. King County, 185 Wn.2d 19 (negligence proximate cause principles)