Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)

Citation: Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Parent Document: Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1990-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5106834/atherton-condominium-apartment-... ↗

Full Text

1,447 chars

Taylor, at 168. On this issue, the court's opinion was unanimous. Taylor, at 173 (Utter, J., concurring). We noted that "[sjeveral policy considerations compel our conclusion that it is the duty of individuals, not local government, to ensure compliance with building codes." Taylor, at 168. First, the primary purpose of building codes is to protect the public safety, not to compensate individuals for economic loss. Second, burdening local government to ensure compliance with code requirements may well cause serious budgetary and personnel costs more aptly borne by the builder. Taylor, at 168-69. Third, imposing liability for noncompliance on the builder is consistent with the vested rights doctrine which protects the right to develop land only if building codes are fully complied with. Taylor, at 169-70 (citing Comment, Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doctrine, 57 Wash. L. Rev. 139, 143 (1981); Nolan v. Blackwell, 123 Wash. 504, 212 P. 1048 (1923)). We concluded that the public duty doctrine is premised upon the well reasoned policy that "legislative enactments for the public welfare should not be discouraged by subjecting a governmental entity to unlimited liability." Taylor, at 170. No persuasive reason has been presented in this case to warrant departing from Taylor. Accordingly, we reject Owners' contention that the public duty doctrine should not apply to claims that public officials negligently administered the UBC.

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text