ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation: ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document: ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1990-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610918/atherton-condo-apartment-owners... ↗

Full Text

1,124 chars

*529 [12] Where the liability of a governmental entity is at issue, the public duty doctrine is employed to determine if the alleged "duty is one owed to a nebulous public or whether that duty is owed to a particular individual." Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 188, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988). The public duty doctrine precludes liability for a public official's negligent conduct unless it is established that "`the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general ...'". Taylor, at 163 (quoting J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 100 Wn.2d 299, 303, 669 P.2d 468, 41 A.L.R.4th 86 (1983)). See also Oberg v. Department of Natural Resources, 114 Wn.2d 278, 282, 787 P.2d 918 (1990); Honcoop, 111 Wn.2d at 188; Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 178, 759 P.2d 455 (1988); Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 265, 737 P.2d 1257, 753 P.2d 523 (1987). In the present case, the question is whether the UBC imposes a duty upon Lynnwood and its building officials which is owed to the public as a whole or whether the duty is owed to the Owners as individuals.

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text