Opinion ID: 1215511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: FAILURE To ENFORCE EXCEPTION

Text: The gravamen of the dairy operators' claim against the State is that the State negligently failed to enforce the brucellosis statutes and regulations. The dairy operators allege, and the record indicates, that Holloway failed to comply with animal importation, quarantine, release from quarantine, testing and retesting requirements. [3] In Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987) we recognized the failure to enforce exception to the public duty doctrine. We held that a general duty of care owed to the public can be owed to an individual where [1] governmental agents responsible for enforcing statutory requirements [2] possess actual knowledge of a statutory violation, fail to take corrective action despite a statutory duty to do so, and [3] the plaintiff is within the class the statute intended to protect ... Bailey, at 268; see Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1, 12-13, 530 P.2d 234 (1975). The first and third elements are clearly satisfied. The Director is responsible for the enforcement of the brucellosis control program. RCW 16.36.020 and .040. The dairy operators are also within the class of individuals the brucellosis control program is intended to protect. The question presented is whether a public official possessed actual knowledge of a violation of a statutory duty and failed to take corrective action despite a duty to do so. Although the State discovered brucellosis suspects in cattle sold by Holloway as early as April 1977, our review of the record reveals that the State did not have actual knowledge of a statutory violation until June or July 1978. In March 1978, a USDA official met with Holloway and prepared an investigative report of his overall cattle operation. In June 1978, the USDA regional epidemiologist sent a memorandum to the state veterinarian which concluded that the increase in infection in Whatcom County was associated with cattle sold by Holloway. Finally, in July 1978, the USDA sent a letter to the state veterinarian advising that Mr. Holloway has very little regard for the State regulations that pertain to the movement of cattle restricted by State quarantine. Clerk's Papers, at 166. Upon learning of these violations, the Director was under a duty to enjoin Holloway from continuing such violations and/or bring a criminal action. RCW 16.36.110; WAC 16-54-150, 16-86-100. None of the dairy operators allege that their herds became infected after June or July 1978 when the State first had knowledge of Holloway's statutory violations. Thus, none of the operators fall within the failure to enforce exception to the public duty doctrine. As the State had no actual knowledge of a statutory violation at the time the dairy operators suffered their damages, there is no duty that the State owes the operators, and consequently no breach of duty to trigger the proximate cause of the operators' damages.