# Campbell v. City of Bellevue

> Washington Supreme Court · January 9, 1975 · 85 Wash. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791345

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Douglas Campbell, as Executor, Respondent v. the City of Bellevue, Appellant; Robert Douglas Campbell, as Executor, Respondent, v. Richard Saunders, Petitioner
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 9, 1975
- **Citations:** 85 Wash. 2d 1; 530 P.2d 234; 1975 Wash. LEXIS 844
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Hamilton, Wright, Stafford, Hale, Finley, Rosellini, Hunter, Utter, Brachtenbach
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791345

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding governmental agents responsible for enforcing statutory requirements when they possess actual knowledge of a statutory violation, fail to take corrective action despite a statutory duty to do so, and the plaintiff is within the class the statute intended to protect
- describing the “duty to all, duty to no-one” doctrine as a form of sovereign immunity
- noting both explicit and implicit exceptions to the general rule that statutory duties are owed to the public as a whole

## Opinion text

Wright, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. The appellant, City of Bellevue, is charged with negligence on the part of one of its employees for an alleged failure to make a proper electrical inspection. There is no common-law duty upon a city to perform inspections on private property. In the absence of either a statute or an ordinance providing for inspections, there not only would be no duty to make such an inspection, there would be absolutely no authority to make such an inspection. Any duty, therefore, must rest upon a statute or ordinance.
The statute relating to electrical inspections is RCW 19.28. By RCW 19.28.360 state inspection requirements specifically do not apply within certain cities and towns, that is, any city having an ordinance requiring an equal or higher standard of inspection. There is no contention that *15 Bellevue fails to fall within the exemption granted by RCW 19.28.360.
The position of electrical inspector in the city of Bellevue is created by the city ordinance, and his powers and duties are established by the ordinance. The installation in question herein was made before that area was within the city of Bellevue and, therefore, the only authority of the inspector would come from Bellevue Municipal Code 16.32.110 (ordinance No. 163 § 9) entitled “Unsafe prior installations.” The authority of an inspector under that section is limited to the service of a written notice requiring correction of the unsafe condition within not more than 60 days. Only after failure to comply with the notice may the inspector disconnect. In the instant case, had he immediately disconnected the power from the outside wiring, he would have been a trespasser. How, I ask, may the City be liable because its employee did not do an act which, if done, would have been unlawful?
There is a further reason why the City cannot be liable in a situation such as this. The rule has long been in this state that a city will not be liable for failure to enforce its ordinances. A leading case in this jurisdiction is Kitsap County Transp. Co. v. Seattle, 75 Wash. 673 , 135 P. 476 (1913). Therein the city had an ordinance forbidding the dumping of refuse into the waters of Elliott Bay. Plaintiff’s steamship was damaged by contact with certain timbers and piles unlawfully placed in the water.
The court stated the problem as follows at page 674:
The sole question here for determination is whether or not the city, in exercising control over the harbor and waters of Elliott Bay in front of the city of Seattle, is liable in damages for failure of the port warden to enforce an ordinance which provided for the keeping of the harbor free from debris.
Further, the court said at pages 677-78:
The general rule is that a city is not civilly liable for neglect of duty on the part of its officers in respect to the *16 enforcement of ordinances. In 4 Dillon, Municipal Corporations (5th ed.), § 1627, it is said:
“Unless there be a valid contract creating, or a statute declaring, the liability, a municipal corporation is not bound to secure a perfect execution of its bylaws, relating to its public powers, and it is not responsible civilly for neglect of duty on the part of its officers in respect to their enforcement, although such neglect results in injuries to private persons which would otherwise not have happened.”
Numerous other cases to the same effect include Wegmiller v. State, 154 Wash. 101 , 280 P. 739 (1929); Fluckiger v. Seattle, 103 Wash. 330 , 174 P. 456 (1918), and Goggin v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 894 , 297 P.2d 602 (1956).
Two recent cases to the same effect, both of which cases involve safety inspections, are Nerbun v. State, 8 Wn. App. 370 , 506 P.2d 873 (1973) and Loger v. Washington Timber Prods., Inc., 8 Wn. App. 921 , 509 P.2d 1009 (1973).
For the reasons stated, I believe this action should be dismissed as against the defendant City of Bellevue, and, therefore, I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9791345. Public record. Not legal advice.