We need not address horizontal privity. The City asserts that the public duty doctrine bars Homeowners' negligence claims. In a negligence action, the threshold determination is whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. According to the public duty doctrine, a governmental entity is not liable in negligence to an injured plaintiff unless the entity owes a duty to the plaintiff individually as opposed to the public generally. In general, land use and building regulations impose duties owed only to the public at large.
Homeowners contend that all four exceptions apply.
First, they argue that municipal legislation protects persons in their class. Liability upon a municipal code is possible if the code by its terms evidences a clear intent to identify and protect a particular class of persons. Contrary to Homeowners' position, SMC 22.808.130 does not create a duty upon the City to warn purchasers of potential landslide areas. The code merely provides that the Director of Construction and Land Use may require the owner to file a covenant in which the owner agrees to inform future purchasers of the risks. Homeowners also cite Director's Rule 2-87, which simply provides procedures and guidelines for carrying out SMC 22.808.130.