Opinion ID: 2624965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City's Duty to Maintain Drainage System

Text: The trial court dismissed the negligent maintenance claims against the city, finding they were barred by the public duty doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city on this claim. The Court of Appeals reversed. The homeowners contend the city's storm drain system had been negligently maintained, and that negligence proximately caused the land to slide. They pleaded facts tending to show that they fall within the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. To fall within the special relationship exception on their negligent maintenance claim, the homeowners must establish: (1) there is direct contact or privity between the public official and the injured plaintiff which sets the latter apart from the general public, and (2) there are express assurances given by a public official, which (3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff. Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 166, 759 P.2d 447. The homeowners also contend that negligent maintenance occurred both to the drainage system on the developed site and off of the developed site. According to the homeowners, the drainage system for the Lakeview property had two components: foundation drains channeling water from the foundation area into a storm sewer system, and lines conducting water from the downspouts off site. The homeowners submitted facts tending to show that the drainage system was built so that it was not tightly lined into the storm sewer system but connected to an infiltration gallery. Instead of taking the surface water away from the site, it introduced the water to the area of the foundation. The defective drainage system was apparently buried before it was inspected by a representative of the city. The Fukuis filed a claim with the city for flood damage, and were compensated. Aware of the drainage problems, the city installed catch basins in front of the Fukui residence. Ms. Fukui submitted an affidavit saying she relied on assurances from the city that it would maintain the storm drains. She has demonstrated, sufficient to defeat a claim for summary judgment, direct contact, express assurances, and justifiable reliance. She falls within the special relationship exception with regards to damages occasioned by actual negligence in maintaining the storm drain system. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court's dismissal of this claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [6]