discussing duty arising from special relationship in context of governmental defendant
How later courts described this case
- discussing duty arising from special relationship in context of governmental defendant
- The court found that the motorcycle passenger’s allegations that the police failed to restrain an intoxicated man from driving a truck which subsequently hit the motorcycle she was riding came within an exception to the public duty doctrine and thus, stated a cause of action against the town
- noting “the difficult question as to whether affording special protection to agents of the government violates the Legislature’s directive, which requires governmental bodies to be liable in tort”
- in deciding whether a municipality's action or inaction was reasonable, "the trier of fact can take into account the municipality's available resources and its resource allocation policy"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Durham, J.
(concurring in the result) — I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in dismissing Bailey's complaint. However, to the extent that the majority opinion questions the viability of the public duty doctrine, I do not concur.
Our task in this case is to determine if Bailey has alleged facts in her pleading that will withstand a CR 12(c) motion. As the majority correctly concludes, the facts alleged by *272 Bailey come within an exception to the public duty doctrine, and, therefore, Bailey may proceed with her action. Having decided this, we need not consider the viability of the public duty doctrine itself in this case. Hence, the doubts expressed by the majority about the wisdom of the public duty doctrine are mere dicta.
Brachtenbach, Dolliver, and Andersen, JJ., concur with Durham, J.