HI LED CoUi i,CF PPEALS 5f5 JUL 21 

### AM 9: 25 S- 1 — dadS, Im ON Y 0 UTY\ 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHING DIVISION II SUNSHINE HEIFERS, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Appellant,

M0 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; & DAN NEWHOUSE, in his capacity as the Director for the Washington State Department of Agriculture, No. 46322 - 9 -II

PUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, P. J. — Sunshine Heifers, LLC sued the Washington State Department of Agriculture, claiming damages arising from negligent cattle-inspections. Sunshine appeals the 

### superior court' s order granting summaryjudgmentto the Department and denying partial 

### summaryjudgmentto Sunshine. Sunshine argues that because the cattle inspections constitute a 

### proprietary function,the superior court erred by ruling thatthe public duty doctrine precluded the Department' s liability for negligent cattle inspections. We hold thatthe Department's cattle inspections constitute a governmental function, rather than a proprietary function. Thus, the 

### public duty doctrine precludes the Department's liabilityfor its negligent cattle inspections. 

### Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's grant ofsummaryjudgment to the Department and its denial of partial summaryjudgment to Sunshine.No. 46322 - 9 -II FACTS A. The Department' s Cattle Inspections

Pursuant to chapter 16. 57 RCW, the Department maintains an exclusive and uniform registry of cattle brands.' 

### RCW 16.57.020, .050. Any brand placed on cattle must.be recorded 

### with the Department. RCW 16.57.020, .050. Properly recorded cattle brands provide prima facie evidence ofthe cattle' s owner. RCW 16.57. 100. Chapter 16.57 RCW authorizes the Departmentto conduct mandatory cattle inspections to determine ownership of the cattle. RCW 16. 57. 010( 10),. 267; former RCW 16. 57. 160 ( 2013). To empower the Department to conduct these inspections, chapter 16.57 RCW authorizes the 

### Department to obtain a warrant to compel entry into livestock markets and slaughterhouses and 

### to set up road blocks to stop vehicles containing cattle. RCW 16.57.170- 180,. 245. Additionally, cattle normally must be inspected by the Department before they are moved out ofWashington State. See RCW 16.57.260; WAC 16-610-035. But the Department has an 

### agreement with certain other states, including Oregon,where the Department authorizes the cattle to pass to that state' s public livestock market without an inspection, contingent upon the 

### Department inspecting the cattle atthe state' s public market priorto sale. WAC 16-610-035(2). Ifa cattle seller puts cattle up for sale and the Department inspection reveals that the cattle seller lacks sufficient proofofownership, the Department impounds the cattle. RCW 16.57.290. Where the Department suspects theft, the Department immediately investigates 

### ownership ofthe impounded cattle. RCW 16.57.290. Otherwise,the Department allows the

1 Under chapter 1.6. 57 RCW, cattle is a subset of livestock. RCW 16. 57.010(9).
10)No. 46322 - 9 -II cattle to be sold but retains the proceeds until sufficient proof of ownership is presented. RCW 16.57.290. Where such a sale of impounded cattle occurs at a licensed public livestock market, the market' s licensee holds onto the sale proceeds for a reasonable period, not to exceed 30 days, before the proceeds go to the Department. RCW 16. 57.300. The Department may make
warrantless arrests of "any person ... whom the director has reason to believe is guilty of transporting, holding, selling, or slaughtering stolen livestock." RCW 16. 57.210. When the Department conducts a cattle inspection, it charges an inspection fee in an 

### amount setby RCW 16.57.220.2 These fees are " deposited in an account in the agricultural local fund and used to carry out the purposes of [chapter 16. 57 RCW], except as otherwise provided." RCW 16. 57.370. B. 

### The Dana Group, LLC's Lease ofSunshine Heifers' Cattle 

### In 2008, the Dacia Group contracted to lease cattle from Sunshine. The Dana Group' s performance was secured with an agreement that gave Sunshine a security interest in all cattle 

### owned or leased bythe Dana Group. The Dana Group defaulted onthe lease in 2009 and remained in default throughout this litigation. C. 

### The Department's Inspections ofthe Dana Group' s Transported Cattle in Oregon Between November of2008 and February of2010, the Dana Group transported cattle through Washington and to Oregon for sale at an Oregon licensed public livestock market,

2 The cattle inspection fee is the larger of a set amount per head ($1. 10 if properly branded, $ 1. 60 otherwise) or the time and mileage fee ($ 17. 00 per hour plus the current mileage rate). RCW 16. 57.220( l)-(2), ( 8).
3 

### Gary and Donna Sytsma own the Dana Group. For purposes ofclarity,we referto the Dana Group and the Sytsmas collectively as the Dana Group.No. 46322 - 9 -II without Sunshine' s knowledge or consent. Some ofthe transported cattle had Sunshine' s brand,

which was recorded with the

# Department. The remaining transported cattle were subject to 

### Sunshine' s security interest in the Dana Group' s cattle. The Department allowed the Dana Group to move the transported.cattle out of Washington and to the Oregon public market, where the Department inspected the transported 

### cattle priorto sale. The Dana Group asserted that it owned all ofthe transported cattle. After inspection, the Department allowed the transported cattle to be sold without impounding the cattle or the sale proceeds. The public market sold the cattle and distributed the proceeds to the Dana Group. 4 D. 

### Sunshine' s ComplaintAgainst the Department and Cross Summary Judgment Motions Sunshine sued the Department for negligence and breach offiduciary duty, alleging that 

## byimproperly inspecting the transported cattle, the Department erroneously allowed the Dana Group to wrongfully sell the transported cattle and acquirethe sale proceeds. The Department moved for summaryjudgment on both claims. Concerning the negligence claim,the Department argued that because its cattle inspections constitute a governmental function, the public duty doctrine precluded the Department' s liability for negligent cattle inspections. Sunshine moved 

### forpartial summaryjudgment onthe issue ofwhetherthe Department owed Sunshine aduty. The superior court granted summaryjudgmentto the Department and denied Sunshine 

### partial summaryjudgment. The superior court ruled thatthe public duty doctrine precluded the Department's liability for negligent cattle inspections andthat the Department owed Sunshine no 4 In February of2010, the Department began impounding the sale proceeds from the Dana Group' s cattle sales.
MNo. 46322 - 9 -II fiduciary duty. Sunshine appeals, challenging only the superior court' s ruling that the public 

### duty doctrine precluded the Department' s liability for negligent cattle inspections. ANALYSIS Sunshine argues that because the Department' s cattle inspections constitute a proprietary 

### function,the public duty doctrine does not apply. We disagree. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A superior court should grant summaryjudgment ifit determines, after viewing the entire record and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe nonmoving party, that there are no 

### genuine issues ofmaterial fact and thatthe moving party is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law. CR 56( c); Lyons v. U.S. Bank NA, 181 Wn.2d 775, 783, 336 P. 3d 1142 ( 2014). We review 

### a summaryjudgment order de novo from the same position as the superior court. Morin v. Harrell, 161 Wn.2d 226, 230, 164 P. 3d 495 ( 2007). We consider all evidence submitted and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lyons, 181 Wn.2d at 783. 

### We also review statutory interpretation de novo, giving effectto the 

### statute' s plain meaning. O.S.T.v. Regence BlueShield, 181 Wn.2d 691, 696, 335 P.3d 416 2014).The threshold determination in a negligence action is whether the defendant owes a duty ofcare to the plaintiff,a question we review de novo. Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc'ns Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 877, 288 P.3d 328 ( 2012). Government entities are liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct oftheir employees, "` to the same

extent as ifthey were a private person or corporation."' Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844, 853, 133 P. 3d 459 (2006) ( quoting RCW 4.96.010( 1)). But under the public duty doctrine,

zNo. 46322 - 9 -II 

### the government may be held liable for negligence only if it breaches a duty owed to a particular individual, ratherthan a duty owed to the general public. Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18, 27, 134 P. 3d 197 ( 2006). The plaintiff in a negligence action has the burden of establishing 

### that a government entity has breached a duty owed to them individually, ratherthan to the public 

### at large. Babcockv. Mason County Fire Dist.No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 785, 30 P.3d 1261 ( 2001). 

### The public duty doctrine reflects the policythat `legislative enactments forthe public welfare should not be discouraged by subjecting a governmental entity to unlimited liability."' Stiefel v. City ofKent, 132 Wn.App. 523, 528, 132 P. 3d 1111 ( 2006) (quoting Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159, 170, 759 P. 2d 447 ( 1988)). Accordingly, governmental actions 

## ensuring compliance with the lawshould notcause the governmentto absorb liability forprivate individuals' violation ofthose laws.. See Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 170. 

### Butthe public duty doctrine does not apply when the government is performing a 

### proprietary function, ratherthan a governmental function. Fabre v. Town ofRuston, 180 Wn. App. 150, 159, 321 P. 3d 1208 ( 2014). Ifa government entity is performing a proprietary 

### function, it has an identical duty ofcare to aprivateindividual or institution engaging in the 

### same activity. Dorsch v. City ofTacoma, 92 Wn.App. 131, 135, 960 P.2d 489 ( 1998). The principal test in distinguishing governmental functions from proprietary functions is whether the act performed is for the common good ofall, or whether it is forthe special benefit

or profit of the corporate entity." 

### Okeson v. City ofSeattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 550, 78 P.3d 1279 2003). Proprietary functions are "` 

### businesslike activities that are normally performed by private
enterprise."' 

### Fabre, 180 Wn.App. at 159 (quoting Stiefel, 132 Wn.App. at 529 (proprietary functions include provision of medical and psychiatric care and sewage system operation)).

G?No. 46322 - 9 -II Conversely, "` [

### g]overnmental functions are those generally performed exclusively by
governmental entities."' 180 Wn. App. at 159 ( alteration in original) (quoting Stiefel, 132 Wn. App. at 529). Governmental functions are normally those that involve ensuring compliance with 

### state law, issuing permits, and performing activities forthe public welfare. See Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 165 Wn.2d 679, 686- 88, 202 P. 3d 924 (2009); 

### Fabre, 180 Wn.App. at 159; Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 551 ( operating street lights); 

### Stiefel, 132 Wn.App. at 529-30 (operating afire department); Dorsch v. City ofTacoma, 92 Wn.App. 131, 136, 960 P.2d 489 ( 1998) ( issuing

electrical permits); Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 421- 22, 755 P.2d 781 ( 1988) ( auditing of public offices and registering of securities). Consistent with this, inspections generally constitute
governmental functions. Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 164- 65 ( building inspections); Loger v. Washington Timber Products, Inc., 8 Wn.App. 921, 931, 509 P. 2d 1009 ( 1973) ( safety inspections). 

### The public duty doctrine precludes liability for a governmental entity' s governmental functions. Fabre, 180 Wn.App. at 159. II. THE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE' S APPLICABILITY TO THE DEPARTMENT' S INSPECTION Sunshine argues that the Department's cattle inspections constitute a proprietary function 

### to which the public duty doctrine does not apply. We disagree because the cattle inspections are 

### afunction performed exclusively by governmental entities and forthe common good ofall, but not forthe special benefit or profit ofthe Departments

s Sunshine argues that our interpretation ofthe inspections' purpose and the Department' s 

### inspection powers should be guided in part by Department inspector Thomas Groffs deposition 

### beforethe superior court, particularly Groffs statement thatthe inspections' purpose is to protect the cattle' s true owners. But because the Department is an administrative agency, it is a creature

7No. 46322 - 9 -II
A. 

### The Department' s Cattle Inspections are a Function Generally Performed Exclusively by

Governmental Entities Sunshine argues that the cattle inspections are not a function generally performed 

### exclusively by governmental entities because chapter 16.57 RCW grants the Department broad powers over privately owned cattle by authorizing the Departmentto impound cattle and hold the proceeds from cattle sales. RCW 16. 57.290, . 300. We disagree.

Under chapter 16. 57 RCW, the Department compels cattle owners to submit to the Department' s cattle inspections, traffic stops, searches of buildings and vehicles, and seizures of

cattle and sale proceeds. RCW 16. 57. 170-. 200,. 245,. 270,. 290-. 320. If an inspection gives the Department a reason to believe an individual is transporting, holding, selling, or slaughtering 

### stolen cattle, the Department may arrest that individual. RCW 16.57.210. Compelled inspections, searches, and seizures are functions generally performed exclusively by 

### governmental entities. See generally Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 164-65; Loger, 8 Wn.App. at 931. 

### This is particularly true here because the inspections are ensuring compliance with the state laws, specifically the state laws prohibiting livestock theft. See RCW 9A.56.080-.083. Sunshine is correct that chapter 16.57 RCW gives the Department great power over 

### privately owned cattle by authorizing the Departmentto impound cattle and to hold the proceeds ofstatute, and its authority is limited to that authority granted by the legislature. Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wn.2d 368, 374, 610 P. 2d 857 ( 1980); Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 159 Wn. App. 148, 155, 244 P. 3d 1003 ( 2010). Because the act authorizes cattle inspections and defines the scope ofthe Department' s inspection powers and Sunshine does not allege that the Department exceeded the act' s grant of inspection powers, we interpret the inspections' purpose and the Department' s inspection powers by referring to the act, not the depositions before the superior court.No. 46322 - 9 -II 

### from cattle sales. But.this lends only further support to the inspections' governmental nature 

### because exercising power over property without the owner' s consent is a function generally 

### performed exclusively by governmental entities. See, e.g., Cent. Puget Sound.Reg' l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 156 Wn.2d 403, 410- 11, 128 P. 3d 588 (2006) ( eminent domain). Thus, we hold 

### the inspections are a function generally performed exclusively by governmental entities. B. The Inspections Arefor the Common Good ofAll Sunshine argues that the inspections are not for the common good ofall because they are meant to protect cattle owners from theft. We disagree. The inspections are for the common good of all because they promote the public welfare in two ways. 

### First, as Sunshine correctly noted,the cattle inspections prevent theft. Theft prevention 

### promotes the public welfare by encouraging farmers to invest in raising cattle for society' s consumption with less fear oftheft. 

### Second, inspecting cattle to determine ownership helps ensure the orderly raising, transportation, sale, and slaughter ofcattle. This promotes the public welfare by reducing the risk that cattle will become contaminated, and thus, unsafe for human consumption. Thus, we hold that because the inspections promote the public welfare, they are for the common good of
all.'


### G We also note that the public policy underlying the public duty doctrine supports that the Department' s cattle inspections should be a governmental function to which the public duty doctrine applies. Ifthe Department could face liability for negligently failing to discover that 

### cattle were stolen, it would discourage the legislature from authorizing the Department to inspect 

### cattle forthe public welfare by subjecting the Department to potentially unlimited liability forthe actions of cattle thieves. See Stiefel, 132 Wn.App. at 528. Ensuring compliance with the laws 

### preventing theft ofcattle should not lead the government to absorb liability for private individuals' violations ofthose laws. See Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 170- 71. 9No. 46322 - 9 -II C. Special Benefit or Profit ofthe Department 

### Sunshine argues that because the Department charges fees for its inspections, the inspections are for the special benefit or profit ofthe Department. We disagree. Although the Department charges fees for its inspections, the fees.are used to carry out the purposes of chapter 16.57 RCW. RCW 16.57.370. Thus, these inspection fees are to make 

### the Department' s regulatory inspections financially independent. Such financial independence is forthe common good ofall taxpaying citizens, not forthe special benefit or profitto the Department. We hold that the cattle inspections are a governmental function, rather than a proprietary 

### function. Therefore, the public duty doctrine precludes the Department's liability for negligent cattle inspections. We affirm the superior court's grant ofsummaryjudgment to the Department and its denial ofpartial summaryjudgment to Sunshine..

Worswick, P.J. We concur:
Maxa, J.•

Le , J.

10