# J & B Development Co. v. King County

> Washington Supreme Court · September 15, 1983 · 100 Wash. 2d 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549038

## Case

- **Full name:** J & B Development Company, Inc., Respondent, v. King County, Petitioner
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 15, 1983
- **Citations:** 100 Wash. 2d 299; 669 P.2d 468; 41 A.L.R. 4th 86; 1983 Wash. LEXIS 1732
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rosellini
- **Judges:** Stafford, Utter, Rosellini
- **Cited by:** 115 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wash. 2d 159 (1988).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549038

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- explaining doctrinal differences between the public duty doctrine and sovereign immunity

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549038. Public record. Not legal advice.