Court Opinion

ID: 9553899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:37:05.658427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:32.711340
License: Public Domain

Durham, J.
(concurring in the result) — I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in dismissing Bailey's complaint. However, to the extent that the majority opinion questions the viability of the public duty doctrine, I do not concur.
Our task in this case is to determine if Bailey has alleged facts in her pleading that will withstand a CR 12(c) motion. As the majority correctly concludes, the facts alleged by *272Bailey come within an exception to the public duty doctrine, and, therefore, Bailey may proceed with her action. Having decided this, we need not consider the viability of the public duty doctrine itself in this case. Hence, the doubts expressed by the majority about the wisdom of the public duty doctrine are mere dicta.
Brachtenbach, Dolliver, and Andersen, JJ., concur with Durham, J.