Meaney v. Dodd, 53891-3
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Citation | 111 Wn.2d 174,759 P.2d 455 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53891-3,53891-3 |
| Parties | Paul MEANEY & Janet Meaney, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Charles H. DODD & Connie, Dodd, husband and wife, Respondents, and Skagit County, Petitioner. |
Page 174
v.
Charles H. DODD & Connie, Dodd, husband and wife, Respondents,
and
Skagit County, Petitioner.
En Banc.
Page 175
Keller Rohrback William Smart, Seattle, Michael Rickert, Skagit County Prosecutor, John Moffat, Deputy, Mount Vernon, for petitioner.
William Nielsen, Mount Vernon, for respondents.
Patrick Sutherland, Thurston County Prosecutor, Thomas Bjorgen, Deputy, Olympia, amicus curiae for Washington Ass'n of Counties, et al.
CALLOW, Justice.
Skagit County challenges reversal of a summary judgment order in its favor dismissing a cross-claim brought by Charles and Connie Dodd. The Dodds allege the County was negligent in issuing them a special use permit and in failing to provide accurate information during the application process. The trial court found the County [759 P.2d 456] breached no duty owed to the Dodds. The Court of Appeals reversed. Meaney v. Dodd, 47 Wash.App. 386, 735 P.2d 100 (1987). We reverse the Court of Appeals.
In February 1982 Charles Dodd applied to the Skagit County Permit Center and Planning Department for a special use permit to operate a semi-portable sawmill on his property. He asked Department employees to assist him in determining whether his application was complete and his proposal complied with county code requirements. He did not specifically request information concerning existing noise level regulations. The only reference to potential noise levels during the application process appeared on the environmental checklist completed by Dodd in which he stated:
Page 176
Due to normal operation of mill proper and small machinery associated with operations, some minimum amount of increase [in noise] will be noticed.
The Skagit County Zoning Administrator checked Dodd's application against the zoning ordinance and visited the proposed site of the sawmill. He submitted staff findings to the hearing examiner which included a finding that "[w]ith operation of the sawmill there will be increased noise in the area." Neither the Zoning Administrator nor any other employee in the Department knew how much noise would be produced as the mill had not yet been built. On March 3, 1982, the hearing examiner granted the special use permit attaching certain conditions not relevant to this case. The County then issued Dodd a building permit and he began construction of the mill.
During the next year and a half Dodd's neighbors, the Meaneys, complained to the Planning Department on numerous occasions that Dodd was violating the conditions of the permit. As a result, the Zoning Administrator and other staff personnel of the Planning Department inspected Dodd's property on several occasions and two hearings were held to review the permit. Each time Dodd was found in compliance with the permit.
In the fall of 1983, the Meaneys filed a lawsuit against the Dodds and Skagit County to close the mill. 1 As a result of the Meaneys' allegations regarding noise level violations, Department officials measured the noise level of the mill and determined it exceeded the 55dBA limit of Skagit County Code 14.04.180(4) and WAC 173.60. The County ordered Dodd to cease operations until the violation was corrected, and revised his permit to include the condition that he comply with the noise limitations in the code. Dodd conducted his own tests and determined that compliance with the code was impossible or economically unfeasible considering the design of the mill and its location with
Page 177
respect to the Meaneys' home. The County then revoked Dodd's permit for lack of compliance with the noise limit.The Dodds filed a cross-claim in the Meaneys' suit alleging:
VI.
That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in failing to provide accurate information in response to requests by defendants Dodd concerning requirements for the installation of the saw mill.
* * *
VIII.
That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in issuing a permit that was not valid and one that could not have been valid under any conditions. That Skagit County, its agents and employees had a duty to disclose to defendants Dodd facts that made it impossible for the project to comply with Skagit County codes.
IX.
That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in issuing the building permit to defendants Dodd.
The County moved for an order of summary judgment dismissing the Dodds' cross-claim. The trial court granted the [759 P.2d 457] motion on the grounds that the County owed no duty to Dodd under the facts of this case and that Dodd had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a "special relationship" had been established between Dodd and the County giving rise to a duty of due care, and remanded for trial. We granted discretionary review.
This appeal arises out of an order granting summary judgment, and therefore we are to engage in the same inquiry as the trial court, which is to consider all facts submitted as contained in the record and reasonable inferences...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. City of Spokane, 70866-5.
...927 P.2d 240 (1996).9 A party may maintain an action against a municipality if a duty can be shown. Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash.2d 174, 179, 759 P.2d 455 (1988). The municipality, as an individual, is held to a general duty of care, that of a "reasonable person under the circumstances." DAN B.......
-
Laymon v. DNR, 23188-3-II.
...39 A.L.R.4th 671 (1983)). There are several exceptions to the public duty doctrine. Meaney v. Dodd, 994 P.2d 239 111 Wash.2d 174, 178, 759 P.2d 455 (1988); Bailey, 108 Wash.2d at 268, 737 P.2d 1257. The "special relationship" exception, claimed by the Laymons, is a "focusing tool" that we u......
-
Cummins v. Lewis County, 76249-0.
...with a sufficient basis for finding an actionable duty under the special relationship exception. See Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash.2d 174, 180, 759 P.2d 455 (1988); Taylor, 111 Wash.2d at 168, 759 P.2d 447 (overruling in part J & B Dev. Co., 100 Wash.2d 299, 669 P.2d 468 (1983), a case imposing ......
-
Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor
..."do[es] not create new duties or eliminate recognized duties." Id. at 251, 29 P.3d 738 (citing Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wash.2d 174, 178, 759 P.2d 455 (1988)). Indeed, each type of "special relationship" has a certain nature and scope from which specific duties are derived. See Caulfield, 108 Wa......