concluding that the “public duty” doctrine is not another form of sovereign immunity abrogated by statute; although municipal corporations shall be liable for damages to the same extent as if they were a private person, the concepts of duty and liability exist independently
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the “public duty” doctrine is not another form of sovereign immunity abrogated by statute; although municipal corporations shall be liable for damages to the same extent as if they were a private person, the concepts of duty and liability exist independently
- describing the “duty to all, duty to no-one” doctrine as a form of sovereign immunity
- overruled on other grounds in Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988) and Taylor v. Stevens Cy., 111 Wn.2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988)
- overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wash.2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wash. 2d 159 (1988)
100 Wn.2d 299, 304-305 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159 , 759 P.2d 447
Overruled on other grounds by Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash. 2d 174 (1988)
100 Wn.2d 299, 304-05 , 669 P.2d 468 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 , 759 P.2d 455
Overruled on other grounds by Honcoop v. State, 111 Wash. 2d 182 (1988)
100 Wn.2d 299, 304, 669 P.2d 468 (1983), overruled on other grounds in Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988).
The opinion
Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court. The Superior Court found that the review of the preliminary plat approval for J & B Development Company should have put it on notice that problems might arise if it did not provide for additional 18-foot setbacks, and that J & B was in just as good a position as Lee to detect the violation of King County Code 21.48-.110.
J & B's knowledge of the required setback is inconsistent with the conclusion that the County's duty to J & B was breached.