# Bailey v. Town of Forks

> Washington Supreme Court · April 28, 1988 · 108 Wash. 2d 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553899

## Case

- **Full name:** Patti Bailey, Petitioner, v. the Town of Forks, Respondent
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 28, 1988
- **Citations:** 108 Wash. 2d 262; 737 P.2d 1257
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Durham
- **Judges:** Utter, Pearson, Goodloe, Verharen, Tern, Dore, Brachtenbach, Dolliver, Andersen, Durham
- **Cited by:** 141 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Modified by State v. Bryant, 51 Wash. App. 258 (1988).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553899

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing duty arising from special relationship in context of governmental defendant
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553899. Public record. Not legal advice.