Chambers-Castanes v. King County
| Citation | 100 Wn.2d 275,669 P.2d 451,39 A.L.R.4th 671 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 47968-2,CHAMBERS-CASTANES and S,47968-2 |
| Parties | , 39 A.L.R.4th 671 Jimteve Ann Chambers-Castanes, his wife, Appellants, v. KING COUNTY, King County Department of Public Safety, a/k/a King County Police, and Lawrence G. Waldt, in his official capacity as King County Sheriff and Director of the King County Department of Public Safety, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Thomas B. Nast, Fred Diamondstone, Seattle, for appellants.
Norman K. Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Michael C. Duggan, Patrick J. Schneider, Deputy Pros. Attys., Seattle, for respondents.
We are asked to decide whether appellants, Jim and Steve Ann Chambers-Castanes, may bring suit against respondents King County, the King County Department of Public Safety (King County Police), and the King County Sheriff for their failure to respond in a proper and timely manner to appellants' call for assistance. Specifically, the Chambers-Castanes alleged that (1) respondents' conduct negligently caused them to suffer severe emotional distress; (2) respondents' extreme and outrageous conduct recklessly caused them to suffer severe emotional distress; and (3) respondents' negligent performance of their duties caused them to lose any cause of action they might have had against their assailants.
The trial court granted respondents' motion to dismiss pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) and found the County, its police force, and the Sheriff owed no duty to respond to appellants' emergency calls. We agree only as to the dismissal of the last claim relating to appellants' loss of a cause of action against their assailants. As to the first two claims, we find appellants have stated a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for outrage. Thus, the dismissal of these two claims was improper.
Since this matter has come before us on a CR 12(b)(6) motion, we must treat all facts alleged by appellants and the reasonable inferences therefrom as true. Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wash.2d 959, 577 P.2d 580 (1978); Green v. Holm, 28 Wash.App. 135, 622 P.2d 869 (1981).
Steve Ann and Jim Chambers-Castanes were driving through the town of Woodinville at approximately 5:50 p.m. on April 22, 1980. Their automobile was stopped in traffic behind a pickup truck occupied by three men. Two of the men exited the truck and approached the Chambers-Castanes' car. Jim Chambers-Castanes left his vehicle to see what the two men wanted. Without warning, both men struck Mr. Chambers-Castanes, knocked him down, and continued beating him. Ms. Chambers-Castanes was also struck and manhandled by one of the men. The third man, who had remained in the truck, drove off. The two assailants left the immediate area on foot, but remained in a nearby open field. A number of people kept the assailants under surveillance in the field from approximately 6 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.
Several observers, including Ms. Chambers-Castanes, notified the King County Police Department of the incident. The King County police operators received a total of 11 calls for assistance from the time of the beatings (approximately 5:50 p.m.) until the police arrived approximately one hour and twenty minutes later.
The contents of the calls may be summarized as follows: At 5:52 p.m. Rose Ranfeldt called the King County police emergency number and reported that a man in a pickup truck had just forced another vehicle off the road in downtown Woodinville and was beating up the driver. Within a little over a minute of Ranfeldt's call, Rick Price, Kit Johnson, and the Bothell Police Department each called the King County police emergency number to report that two men were beating up a third man. According to police reports, a police car was actually dispatched in response to those calls. At approximately 5:55 p.m., about 30 seconds after the Johnson call, Rick Price called again to report that the people involved in the fight "all jumped in their cars and took off." The police reports indicate that upon receipt of this call, the police car which had been dispatched was informed no one was at the scene. Consequently the officers did not continue on to Woodinville.
Five minutes after Price's second call, which resulted in a recall of the police car, Ranfeldt again called the King County emergency number and said "these guys keep coming after these people and these people are out here now and they need the police." A police operator replied, When Ranfeldt asked whether the officers would arrive within a few minutes, the police operator replied, "Yeah."
At 6:27 p.m., nearly one-half hour later, Steve Ann Chambers-Castanes herself called King County police emergency for the first time and reported that "two drunk, mean individuals" had just severely beaten her husband, Jim, at the main intersection in Woodinville. Steve Ann also said A police operator replied: "We've gotten calls from there, ma'am, several calls saying that the fight was ended, that everyone parted." Steve Ann then said, By this time, Steve Ann's husband and several other witnesses had chased the assailants under a railroad trestle. Steve Ann was very upset because she too had been assaulted, although not as severely as her husband. The police operator told her: "You'd better calm down or I won't send anybody." After Steve Ann gave a more specific description of her location, the police operator said, "All right, we'll get somebody up there then." Police reports indicate no one was dispatched to Woodinville at this time.
Thirteen minutes later, at 6:40 p.m., Steve Ann called a second time and said the witnesses were surrounding the assailants. "We need some police here, there shouldn't be any trouble." The police operator initially stated other people had called and canceled the request for assistance, but after Steve Ann said "No ... don't," the operator apparently asked a fellow operator about the status of the incident. When the operator came back on the line, Steve Ann was told, "We have the officer; he is on the way." Police reports indicate that an officer had not, in fact, been dispatched.
At 6:51 p.m., and again 3 minutes later, an unidentified person called King County police emergency to complain about the slow police response to the assault in Woodinville. This caller was told the police Police reports indicate, however, no officer had been sent.
At 6:56 p.m., Steve Ann called a third time to ask whether anybody had been dispatched to the Woodinville intersection. She was told, "Yes, they're on their way ... they'll be there momentarily." Steve Ann then told the police operator that the assailants were "surrounded by a lot of people who stopped to help out, but we really need some assistance." The police operator replied, The police reports indicate that officers were dispatched to Woodinville at the time this call was received (i.e., at approximately 6:56 p.m.). 1
According to police reports, two police officers arrived at approximately 7:12 p.m. Steve Ann asked the officers to look for her husband and the suspects on foot. According to the police reports, the officers did not conduct a search at that time, however, because the search area was so large and because Steve Ann was upset and unable to give a description of the suspects. At 7:30, Jim Chambers-Castanes returned from the field into which the assailants had fled. The police reports indicate that Jim Chambers-Castanes was extremely angry at the police for having taken so long to arrive. The reports state that after Jim calmed down, the officers obtained a description of the suspects and began searching the area.
A third officer arrived at the scene between 8:45 and 9 p.m., at which time the search for the suspects was suspended. Thereafter, Jim and Steve Ann Chambers-Castanes departed for the University Hospital to obtain medical care for Jim.
Appellants do not seek damages for the injuries suffered from the beating by assailants. All parties agree the King County Police could not have prevented the incident. Appellants contend, however, that King County, the King County Police, and the Sheriff are liable for damages suffered by the failure of the police to respond in a timely manner. The damages alleged include emotional distress and the loss of a cause of action against the assailants in that they were never apprehended.
The threshold question is whether the County, the Department of Public Safety, and the Sheriff are immune from such a suit. In its opinion granting respondents' motion to dismiss, the trial court implied respondents were immune from suit, holding that the determination of "[h]ow police resources will be used in responding to calls for help, investigating alleged criminal activity or enforcing the law necessarily and unavoidably involves a great deal of discretion and prompt decision making." We find, however, the statement is overly broad and does not accurately state the limited exception to governmental immunity. Under the facts of this case, we hold respondents are not immune from suit.
The Legislature abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity through enactment of Laws of 1961, ch. 136, § 1, p. 1680 (RCW 4.92.090) and Laws of 1967, ch. 164, § 1, p. 792 (RCW 4.96.010). We have recognized a narrowly circumscribed exception to this rule in instances involving high level discretionary acts exercised at a truly executive level. Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 407 P.2d 440 (1965). 2 See also Cougar Business Owners Ass'n v. State, 97 Wash.2d 466, 647 P.2d 481 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of McCartney by and through McCartney v. Pierce County
...) (internal quotation marks omitted). High level, executive discretionary acts fall within the exception. Chambers-Castanes v. King County , 100 Wash.2d 275, 281, 669 P.2d 451 (1983). Discretionary acts at an operational level do not. Chambers-Castanes , 100 Wash.2d at 282, 669 P.2d 451. ¶ ......
-
Hostetler v. Ward
...agent and the injured party; and (2) the injured party relied upon the governmental agent's assurances of protection. Chambers-Castanes v. King Cy., supra. See also Hartley v. State, 103 Wash.2d at 782, 692 P.2d 77; Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d at 3-5, 10-13, 530 P.2d 234. Neither of th......
-
Ransom v. City of Garden City
...duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large. See also Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash.2d 275, 669 P.2d 451 (1983); Jacobson v. McMillan, 64 Idaho 351, 132 P.2d 773 (1943); Worden v. Witt, 4 Idaho 404, 39 P. 1114 In the insta......
-
Wood v. Ostrander
...of peace and safety. See White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d at 384 and n. 6 (and authorities cited therein). See also Chambers-Castenes v. King Co., 100 Wash.2d 275, 669 P.2d 451 (1983); ... (policy of state to respond to requests for assistance in courteous and judicious manner). Ergo, the majori......
-
Lessons From the BP Emergency Action Plan in Action
...did not cause the original emergency, but were allegedly negligent in their response. See, e.g. , Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983); Barth by Barth v. Board of Education, 490 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986); DeLong v. Erie County, 455 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 19......
-
Dial 911 and report a congressional empty promise: the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999.
...Pearlman, supra note 89, at 57. (110.) See, e.g., DeLong v. County of Erie, 457 N.E.2d 717 (N.Y. 1983); Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983). See also Jeffrey D. Hickman, Note, It's Time to Call 911 For Government Immunity, 43 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1067 (1993); Maas, s......