Bartlett v. Valley Communications Center

Summary

The Washington Court of Appeals held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine in the Estate's negligence claim against Valley Communications Center for allegedly delaying an emergency response. The court reversed dismissal of the negligence claim under CR 12(b)(6). It affirmed dismissal of the negligent supervision and training claim because the complaint did not allege that any employee acted outside the scope of employment.

Holdings

1. The complaint legally sufficiently alleged that the special-relationship exception to the public duty doctrine applied to the Estate's negligence claim.
2. Direct communication between the injured plaintiff and the government entity is not required to establish privity under the special-relationship exception.
3. An express assurance need not be made directly to the victim; it is sufficient that a government employee assured the caller that emergency assistance was on the way for the victim.
4. The negligent supervision and training claims fail because the complaint did not allege that any VCC employee acted outside the scope of employment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable duty under the special-relationship exception to Washington's public duty doctrine.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged privity, express assurances, and justifiable reliance for the special-relationship exception even though the victim did not personally communicate with VCC.
3. Whether the Estate's negligent supervision and training claims could proceed without alleging that VCC employees acted outside the scope of their employment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded