Wa State Department Of Corrections, V. Anthony And Julie Smith, 81246-7

Background

Defendant Craven had prior DOC supervision; on June 26, 2015 a court sentenced him to a DOSA residential treatment sentence (24 months community custody conditioned on entering residential chemical dependency treatment). ABHS was the DOC contractor to provide residential treatment.
ABHS scheduled transport for July 1, 2015; Craven failed to report for transport and ABHS notified the DOC on July 2. ABHS purchased a Greyhound ticket for later transport.
The DOC’s physical copy of the judgment and sentence was retrieved around June 30–July 2; the file reached the Kent field office and a CCO (Wayne Derouin) was assigned on July 8, 2015. There was no active DOC supervision of Craven before July 8.
Between sentencing and July 7, Craven committed violent acts (assaults and violating no-contact orders). On July 7, 2015 Meagan Smith (house sitter) and Angelika Hayden were found murdered; Craven was arrested that day.
Meagan’s parents sued the DOC and ABHS for wrongful death, alleging duties to supervise under Restatement §§ 319, 315, and 302B and arguing proximate causation; the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC owed a take-charge duty under Restatement §319	Duty attached upon issuance/signing of judgment and sentence (DOC assumed care)	No definite, established, continuing relationship existed until a CCO was assigned and active supervision began	No — duty did not attach before active supervision or CCO assignment
Whether DOC owed a special-relationship duty under Restatement §315 (based on prior supervision)	Prior DOC supervision gave knowledge of dangerous propensities and created a continuing duty	Prior supervision had ended; no ongoing relationship at time of murders	No — past supervision alone did not create a continuing duty
Whether DOC owed a duty under Restatement §302B (affirmative act creating risk)	DOC’s delays/omissions (e.g., in assigning CCO) affirmatively increased risk	Alleged conduct were omissions; §302B requires an affirmative act that increases danger	No — plaintiffs pointed to omissions, not an affirmative act creating risk
Whether ABHS owed a duty (take-charge, special relationship, or §302B)	As DOC’s residential-treatment contractor, ABHS assumed monitoring duty when it scheduled transport	ABHS never had in-person contact or custody; no established relationship or affirmative act that increased risk	No — ABHS had not assumed a duty before Craven reported or entered treatment
Whether DOC’s alleged negligence proximately caused Meagan’s death	Had DOC acted to locate/detain Craven after July 2 notices, he would have been detained and Meagan would not have been killed	Plaintiffs cannot show but-for incarceration on the date of the murder; available information would not have located or detained Craven before July 7	No — proximate cause not established; causation would require speculation

Key Cases Cited

Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 (recognizing take-charge duty under Restatement §319)
Joyce v. State, 155 Wn.2d 306 (duty to take reasonable care in supervising offenders once assigned)
Harper v. State, 192 Wn.2d 328 (elements of negligence against the State)
Binschus v. State, 186 Wn.2d 573 (definite, established, continuing relationship required for duty)
Robb v. City of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d 427 (Restatement §302B requires an affirmative act that increases risk)
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 187 Wn.2d 241 (special-relationship analysis where long-term treatment relationship existed)
Estate of Bordon ex rel. Anderson v. State, 122 Wn. App. 227 (distinguishing duties where offender already under active supervision)
Fabrique v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 144 Wn. App. 675 (proximate-cause principles)
Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 190 (proximate causation standard as a matter of law)