Court Opinion

ID: 9609310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:25:32.280803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:59.638033
License: Public Domain

*661Grosse, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority that the "public duty doctrine" as most recently reiterated in Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 271, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987) compels reversal. I write separately only to emphasize that the majority opinion should not be read as holding that the City of Everett is liable as a matter of law for failure to impound the dogs, or for releasing them to the owner after they had once been impounded. Whether the City of Everett is liable depends on whether the governmental agent's acts or omissions were unreasonable under the circumstances; whether the agent failed to take care " 'commensurate with the risk involved'". Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d 1, 12, 530 P.2d 234 (1975) (quoting Runkel v. New York, 282 A.D. 173, 123 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1953)). That determination must be made by the trier of fact after considering the City of Everett's statutory obligations in the context of the economic resources available to it and its resource allocation policy in the context of the facts of this case. See Bailey v. Forks, supra.
Review denied by Supreme Court May 31,1988.