Pierce v. Yakima County
251 P.3d 270
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pierce contracted to purchase a Yakima home and lease it, with outside propane tank; county issued permits for outdoor propane installation; All American Propane installed the tank and piping 60 feet from the home and connected to the house without prior building official approval; a county inspector deemed the installation inspected and approved; Pierce later activated interior gas piping, causing a gas explosion that destroyed the home and injured Pierce; Pierce sued the county and others for negligence and the trial court granted summary judgment for the county based on the public duty doctrine, including a finding that the failure-to-enforce exception did not apply and that no special relationship existed; the court noted the interior piping permitting process was not established and that inspectors had discretion rather than a mandatory duty; on review, the Supreme Court denied direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the public duty doctrine preclude Pierce's negligence claims against Yakima County? | Pierce argues exceptions (failure to enforce, special relationship) apply. | County contends no applicable exception exists and enforcement is discretionary. | No; the public duty doctrine applies and exceptions do not create a duty. |
| Does the failure-to-enforce exception apply to create a duty? | County had a statutory duty to take corrective action and failed to enforce. | Enforcement provisions are discretionary and do not mandate action. | Not applicable; statute lacks a specific directive mandating action. |
| Does a special relationship exist between Pierce and the County giving rise to a duty? | Direct contact and express assurances created a justifiable reliance. | Inspector only evaluated exterior work; assurances do not establish a special relationship. | Not established; no direct inquiry about interior piping and no express assurances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1, 530 P.2d 234 ((1975)) (municipal liability under a mandatory enforcement context)
- Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wash.2d 262, 737 P.2d 1257 ((1987)) (failure to enforce element requires explicit corrective duty)
- Donohoe v. State, 135 Wash.App. 824, 142 P.3d 654 ((2006)) (recognizes public duty doctrine exceptions)
- Halleran v. Nu W., Inc., 123 Wash.App. 701, 98 P.3d 52 ((2004)) (discusses narrow scope of failure-to-enforce exception)
- Smith v. City of Kelso, 112 Wash.App. 277, 48 P.3d 372 ((2002)) (enforcement duty not present where actions are discretionary)
- Ravenscroft v. Water Power Co., 87 Wash.App. 402, 942 P.2d 991 ((1997)) (statutes/ordinances must impose a mandatory duty to trigger exception)
- Waite v. Whatcom County, 54 Wash.App. 682, 775 P.2d 967 ((1989)) (failure-to-enforce element not clearly satisfied where language not explicit)
- McKasson v. State, 55 Wash.App. 18, 776 P.2d 971 ((1989)) (statutes with 'may' vs 'shall' language; lack of directive)
- Forest v. State, 62 Wash.App. 363, 814 P.2d 1181 ((1991)) (parole/arrest statutes illustrate non-mandatory enforcement duties)