Tanya Rider And Tommy Rider v. King County
43363-0
Wash. Ct. App.Sep 17, 2013Background
- Tanya and Tommy Rider sued King County for negligence after Tanya disappeared in 2007 and the County allegedly failed to take reasonable measures to locate her.
- Tommy contacted 911 multiple times; operators provided information and assurances that assistance would be dispatched or located; Rhodes investigated missing persons and sought records.
- Rhodes and others obtained Tanya's cell phone and account information; a warrant and exigent circumstances led to locating Tanya in her car hours later, with Tanya surviving.
- Plaintiffs alleged a special relationship or rescue duty arose from explicit assurances by investigators; County moved for summary judgment asserting no duty under public duty doctrine exceptions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; on appeal the court analyzed whether the special relationship or rescue exceptions applied and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a special relationship create a duty? | Riders: Rhodes communicated explicit assurances to locate Tanya. | County: no express assurances of specific conduct; implied assurances insufficient. | No duty under special relationship |
| Do rescue doctrine exceptions apply here? | Rescue doctrine applies when aid is gratuitously offered and reliance occurs. | No gratuitous duty to rescue; rescue exception not satisfied by public investigations. | Rescue exception not satisfied |
| Was there detrimental reliance on assurances? | Tommy relied on assurances and paused other actions. | Any reliance questions are factual; summary judgment not warranted on this basis. | No detrimental reliance proven as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844 (2006) (absence of express assurances defeats special relationship duty)
- Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774 (2001) (implied assurances insufficient; requires express duty in special relationship)
- Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769 (1998) (express promise of aid needed for special relationship)
- Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communications Center, 175 Wn.2d 871 (2012) (express assurances of action create duty; distinguishable facts)
- Johnson v. State, 164 Wn. App. 740 (2011) (state’s general promise to aid not a special relationship)
- Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18 (2006) (reliance is central to rescue doctrine)