Pierce v. Yakima County
161 Wash. App. 791
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Conrad Pierce appeals a trial court summary judgment dismissing negligence claims against Yakima County under the public duty doctrine.
- Issue is whether the County owed a duty to Pierce based on failure to enforce or special relationship exceptions to the public duty doctrine.
- Pierce alleged County inspectors failed to enforce code violations related to outside propane installation and the internal piping without inspection.
- County had permits for outside connections; no in-home inspection was contemplated by those permits, and the inside piping was later involved in the explosion.
- Trial court held the failure to enforce exception did not apply because the code provisions did not mandate a specific action by inspectors.
- Court also held there was no valid special relationship because there was no direct inquiry and no express assurances by inspectors addressing inside piping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to enforce applies | Pierce: statute requires corrective action by inspectors. | County: no mandatory duty; inspectors have discretion. | No; failure to enforce not established. |
| Whether special relationship applies | Pierce: express assurances from inspectors created reliance. | County: no direct inquiry or express assurances about interior piping. | No; no direct inquiry or specific assurances established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1 (1975) (municipal liability where enforcement directive exists)
- Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262 (1987) (failure to enforce element requires statutory duty to take corrective action)
- Donohoe v. State, 135 Wn. App. 824 (2006) (public duty doctrine exceptions; special relationship cited)
- Halleran v. Nu West, Inc., 123 Wn. App. 701 (2004) (summary of failure to enforce exception and statutory language)
- Smith v. City of Kelso, 112 Wn. App. 277 (2002) (enforcement duty not mandatory where discretion remains)
- Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 87 Wn. App. 402 (1997) (language of statutes/ordinances matters for failure to enforce)
- McKasson v. State, 55 Wn. App. 18 (1989) (no specific directive; broad discretion in statutes)
- Forest v. State, 62 Wn. App. 363 (1991) (may vs shall framework for enforcement duties)
- Waite v. Whatcom County, 54 Wn. App. 682 (1989) (failure to enforce analysis; corrective action element discussed)