Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communications Center, 288 P.3d 328

Munich was shot by Ballsmider about 18 minutes after Munich’s first 911 call to Skagit 911.
Munich told 911 operator Smith that Ballsmider pointed a rifle and fired from about 25 feet away; Munich hid in a garage with unlocked cars.
Smith assured Munich law enforcement was on the way and would be there; she confirmed this a second time but did not give a time estimate.
Smith coded the first call as priority two rather than priority one, delaying dispatch by a deputy who did not use emergency lights or travel at high speed.
Munich made a second call; Canniff relayed updated facts; deputy Luvera activated lights and siren and arrived two minutes after Munich was fatally shot.
Estate sued Skagit County for wrongful death, alleging negligent emergency response; County moved for summary judgment arguing no special relationship since assurances were not false.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether falsity is required for express assurances	Munich (Estate) contends falsity not required where promise of action was promised.	County argues assurances must be false or inaccurate to create a duty.	Falsity not required; assurances promising action can sustain a duty.
Whether a special relationship exists based on 911 assurances	Estate argues direct contact and assurances meet three elements for special relationship.	County contends no special relationship unless assurances were false or misleading.	Special relationship established by privity, express assurance, and justifiable reliance.
Whether the estate can prove breach, causation, and damages after establishing a duty	Estate must show government acted negligently in fulfilling the assurance.	If duty exists, plaintiff still must prove breach, causation, and damages.	Remand or further proof needed on breach, causation, and damages; duty exists if elements met.

Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769 (1998) (express assurance when 911 operator promises help)
Harvey v. Snohomish County, 157 Wn.2d 33 (2006) (no duty where operator’s statements were not untruthful or unfulfilled)
Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 (1988) (detrimental reliance requires incorrect information when direct inquiry is made)
Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275 (1983) (assurances and reliance in 911 context; rescue doctrine lineage)
Bratton v. Welp, 145 Wn.2d 572 (2002) (express assurances where police will be sent)
Oberg v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 114 Wn.2d 278 (1990) (common law duties not subsumed by statutory duties; public duty doctrine context)
Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415 (1988) (public duty doctrine limits to statute/ordinance context; cases discussed)
Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673 (1978) (public duty doctrine; duty owed to public vs. particular individuals)
Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159 (1988) (duty to injured individual versus public at large)