Court Opinion

ID: 9539068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:46:12.897049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:25.688574
License: Public Domain

McInturff, C.J.
(dissenting)—I dissent. The Murrays fall squarely within the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. In J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 100 Wn.2d 299, 307-08, 669 P.2d 468, 41 A.L.R.4th 86 (1983), the court held that a builder who requests a building permit and inspection from the county is in a special relationship with the county and therefore the county has a duty to exercise reasonable care in issuing the building permit. The Murrays were both the builders and occupants of the residence in question. At the time they requested a building permit, the County had a duty to exercise reasonable care in issuing the permit.
The majority agrees that the Murrays initially fall within the class intended to be protected by the building permit and inspection requirements, but determines that "to recover based on a special relationship, the Murrays must allege they relied upon the permit as a certification the house was free of defects." Majority, at 139. I disagree with the majority that under existing case law a showing of actual reliance by the plaintiff is required as part of a showing the plaintiff falls within the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. Rather, a duty on the part of the county arises at the point when the permit is issued. Actual reliance on the permit after the permit is issued is irrelevant on the question of whether the county has a duty to the permittee, although actual reliance may well be important on the causation element of a negligence action.
The purpose of the special relationship rule is to focus on whether a duty is actually owed a claimant rather than the public at large. J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., supra at 305. Once the county's duty has been focused through the "special relationship", the claimant must establish breach of duty and resultant damages. J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., *143supra at 305. To confuse causation with duty, by requiring a showing of actual reliance to prove a special relationship, is to unnecessarily further confuse the application of the public duty doctrine. Criticism of the public duty doctrine is already abundant. Note Hartley v. State: The Public Duty Doctrine in Washington, 22 Willamette L. Rev. 405 (1986); 1A C. Antieu, Municipal Corporation Law § 11.29 (1986); J & B Dev. Co., at 309 (Utter J., concurring in the result) ("I believe we should eliminate the 'public duty doctrine' and simply apply general principles of tort law. . . . [T]he special label 'public duty doctrine' is unnecessary and obscures what is the proper analytical approach— hence, I would rid ourselves of this albatross once and for all.").
Second, per my dissent in Pierce v. Spokane Cy., 46 Wn. App. 171, 730 P.2d 82 (1986), I disagree with the proposition that direct contact by the permittee is necessary to create a special relationship. In Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 777, 698 P.2d 77 (1985), the court held the special relationship exception was premised on some direct contact or special relationship between the defendant and the injured party. Direct contact is merely an example of one way the plaintiff becomes set apart from the general public and a consequent duty to the plaintiff is formed. To determine if a special relationship exists, the court should determine the class of persons the building permit and inspection requirements were designed to benefit. J & B Dev. Co., at 306; Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1, 13, 530 P.2d 234 (1975) (found a duty existed to the plaintiff apart from that to the general public with regard to an electrical inspection). The building permit statute, RCW 19.27.020 and former RCW 19.27.030, specifically indicates the Legislature sought to protect the occupants of the building. RCW 19.27.020 provides: "The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public by the provision of building codes throughout the state.'' (Italics mine.)
*144The Taylors are occupants of the residence built and occupied initially by the Murrays. They are the first occupants after the building permit was issued. The special relationship should extend at least to the first occupants after the permit is issued since it is foreseeable the occupants would be harmed by breach of the duty.
Third, I disagree with the majority's holding that the legislative intent exception is inapplicable in this case. In Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978) the court found the Seattle Housing Code was enacted to benefit a special group of persons, along with the general public. The language of the Seattle Housing Code identified conditions dangerous to the health, safety, morals or welfare "of the occupants of such buildings and of the public". Halvorson, at 677. Halvorson distinguished the purpose of the Seattle Building Code, which was "to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare". (Italics mine.) Halvorson, at 677 n.2. Here, the language in RCW 19.27.020 is more similar to the language in the Seattle Housing Code than the language in the Seattle Building Code. The purpose of RCW 19.27.020 is to promote health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public. Occupants are a special group apart from the public that RCW 19.27.020 was enacted to benefit. Therefore, RCW 19.27.020 can be construed to create a legislative intent exception to the public duty doctrine.2
I would hold the legislative intent exception to the public duty doctrine is applicable in this case. RCW 19.27.020 was intended to specially benefit occupants of buildings and the Taylors are within this class.
As I said in Pierce v. Spokane Cy., supra at 179-80:
*145The contention that such a holding would make the County an insurer5 of building construction is without foundation; rather it makes the County responsible for its negligence, which is in accord with the Legislature's declaration that the government should be treated as a private individual. RCW 4.96.020.6 A private defendant's ability to pay is not considered when determining private tort liability.
[T]he purpose of imposing liability for negligence is to make the negligent wrongdoer compensate the injured party. If government agents are negligent, the innocent victims of their negligence should not have to bear the cost.
Comment, A Unified Approach to State and Municipal Tort Liability in Washington, 59 Wash. L. Rev. 533, 541 (1984).
Fear of unlimited municipal tort liability is unfounded. First, proximate cause is as effective a limitation on government tort liability as it is on the liability of a private party. Comment, 59 Wash. L. Rev. at 541 n.56 (citing W. Prosser, Torts § 131, at 979-82 (4th ed. 1971)). Second, although our courts, in the quest for justice, have been protective of the county, in the past the county has been held liable. It is already established that a county may be liable to a homeowner employing a builder to build his home. Radach v. Gunderson, 39 Wn. App. 392, 695 P.2d 128 (1985). Further, it is established the county may be liable to the builder himself. J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., supra at 312. Neither of these previous holdings resulted in unlimited municipal liability.
The second issue not reached by the majority is whether Stevens County has immunity from suit for building *146inspections performed by its agents. The Stevens County Building Construction Code contains a nonliability clause at section 202(f) of the Uniform Building Code (1979).3
By statute, the Legislature has abolished sovereign immunity, providing that a governmental unit shall be liable for its tortious conduct to the same extent as a private person or corporation.4 Kelso v. Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 916, 390 P.2d 2 (1964) states that the "common-law right of sovereign immunity is not in the municipality but in the sovereign from which the immunity is derived." A waiver by the State of its governmental immunity operates to withdraw such immunity from municipalities as well. Kelso v. Tacoma, supra at 918. Following Kelso, the Legislature, by statute, extended the abolition of sovereign immunity to the state's political subdivisions. Laws of 1967, ch. 164, § 1, p. 792. Therefore, the Stevens County Building Construction Code is ineffectual to grant greater immunity than that afforded by the State of Washington.
Cases which recognize and uphold the validity of nonlia-bility clauses in state statutes conferring state immunity are not applicable to attempts by a county to limit its liability. Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 595 P.2d 930 (1979) (legislative disclaimers of State's duty under state securities act and administrative regulations for documents filed). *147Further, Campbell v. Bellevue, supra, does not stand for the proposition that nonliability clauses contained in a municipal or county ordinance will be upheld. In Campbell v. Bellevue, supra at 7, the court found the ordinance did not purport to relieve the City from liability for the tor-tious acts of its agents, so there was no conflict with RCW 4.96.010 which abolished sovereign immunity.
I would hold the Stevens County Building Construction Code confers no immunity on Stevens County for negligent issuance of building permits.
Having established the County owed both the Murrays and Taylors a duty of reasonable care, I would reverse the dismissal of the County and remand this case for trial on causation and damages.
After modification, further reconsideration denied March 10, 1987.
Review granted by Supreme Court July 2,1987.

The holding in Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 595 P.2d 930 (1979) that there was no legislative intent exception in the case of security regulations is inapposite to these cases involving building permits. The disclaimer in Baerlein was embodied in the statute and specifically exempted the State from any duty for a misleading, incomplete or false securities registration statement. Baerlein, at 232.

To insure is "To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils or possible liability." Black's Law Dictionary 726 (5th ed. 1979).

RCW 4.96.010 provides:
"All political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and quasi municipal corporations of the state, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their officers, agents or employees to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation: ..."

 "Liability. The building official, or his authorized representative charged with the enforcement of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in the discharge of his duties, shall not thereby render himself personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge of his duties. Any suit brought against the building official or employee because of such act or omission performed by him in the enforcement of any provision of this code shall be defended by legal counsel provided by this jurisdiction until final termination of such proceedings.
"This code shall not be construed to relieve from or lessen the responsibility of any person owning, operating or controlling any building or structure for any damages to persons or property caused by defects, nor shall the code enforcement agency or its parent jurisdiction be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the inspections authorized by this code or any certificates of inspection issued under this code."

RCW 4.96.010.