Cummins v. Lewis County

156 Wash. 2d 844 (2006) · Supreme Court of Washington · May 4, 2006 · No. Review granted; Washington Supreme Court docket number not stated in source

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a 911 caller who identified a medical emergency and provided an address but hung up before speaking with the dispatcher did not establish a special relationship with the county. Because there was no ongoing dialogue, express assurance of assistance, or justifiable reliance, Lewis County owed no actionable individual duty under the public duty doctrine. The court also declined to eliminate the express-assurance requirement for 911 medical-emergency cases and affirmed summary judgment for the county.

Holdings

  1. A 911 caller does not establish the privity and special relationship necessary to create an actionable government duty merely by placing a call, stating a location and medical emergency, and hanging up. In the 911 context, the required communication includes a telephone conversation and an affirmative promise or agreement to provide assistance.
  2. An express, unequivocal assurance by a government official that assistance will be provided is required to establish an actionable special relationship; implied or inherent assurances are insufficient.
  3. The special relationship also requires justifiable reliance on an explicit governmental assurance to the plaintiff's detriment; that requirement was not met here.
  4. The court declined to create a medical-emergency exception to the express-assurance requirement or impose a heightened governmental duty for 911 medical calls. A municipality's duty to respond to a 911 call is a general duty owed to the public regardless of whether the requested aid is medical, police, or fire assistance.
  5. The enhanced 911 statutes did not impose an actionable statutory duty to dispatch medical aid to Leon Cummins under these facts.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the public duty doctrine barred the wrongful-death negligence claim because Lewis County owed no duty to Leon Cummins individually.
  2. Whether a special relationship and actionable duty arose from a 911 call when the caller stated a location and medical emergency but hung up before requesting assistance or receiving an express assurance from the dispatcher.
  3. Whether the express-assurance requirement of Washington's special-relationship exception should be eliminated or relaxed for 911 calls seeking medical assistance.
  4. Whether Washington's enhanced 911 statutes imposed an actionable statutory duty on Lewis County under the circumstances.
  5. Whether arguments first raised in a supplemental brief seeking abandonment of the public duty doctrine and limitation of the special-relationship exception should be considered.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (15)

  • Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 784-93, 30 P.3d 1261 (2001)(followed)
  • Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc'y, 124 Wn.2d 121, 128, 875 P.2d 621 (1994)(followed)
  • Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 163, 166-68, 759 P.2d 447 (1988)(followed)
  • J&B Dev. Co. v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 299, 303, 669 P.2d 468 (1983)(limited)
  • Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 265, 268, 737 P.2d 1257, 753 P.2d 523 (1987)(followed)
  • Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 785-86, 954 P.2d 237 (1998)(followed)
  • Bratton v. Welp, 145 Wn.2d 572, 577, 39 P.3d 959 (2002)(followed)
  • Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275, 286, 669 P.2d 451 (1983)(followed)
  • Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 188, 192-93, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988)(followed)
  • Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 180, 759 P.2d 455 (1988)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court