Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit
described in this article.
In a recent premises liability case Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals considered what duty, if any, a landowner owes to a police officer.[1]
On the night of December 20, 2005, a King County Sheriff’s Department Deputy entered the grounds of Highline High School in Burien, Washington, in response to a call from a school security guard reporting that a burglary was taking place on school property. While searching for the suspected burglar, McDonald slipped and fell on a set of wooden stairs that led to a wooden platform next to a dumpster, injuring himself. McDonald subsequently brought an action against the school district, alleging that it had negligently maintained the property where he fell.
In Washington, “[t]he legal duty owed by a landowner to a person entering the [landowner’s] premises depends on whether the entrant falls under the common law category of a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.”[2]
The difference between the duty of care owed to licensees and that owed to invitees is that, with respect to licensees, a landowner has no duty to discover dangerous conditions and the provision of a warning about a dangerous condition or the taking of corrective action is sufficient to fulfill his or her duty. This is in contrast to the affirmative duty owed to invitees to ascertain dangerous conditions and to take corrective measures to protect the personal safety of invitees.
The Court of Appeals followed precedent holding that firefighters are invitees and applied this to police.[3]
[1] McDonald v. Highline School District #401, No. 63751-7-I (June 21, 2010).
[2] Iwai v. State, 129 Wn.2d 84, 90–91, 915 P.2d 1089 (1996) (citing Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658, 662, 724 P.2d 991 (1986)); accord Musci v. Graoch Assocs. Ltd. P’ship No.12, 144 Wn.2d 847, 854–55, 31 P.3d 684 (2001) (citing Degel, 129 Wn.2d at 49).
[3] Strong v. Seattle Stevedore Co., 1 Wn. App.898, 902, 466 P.2d 545 (1970).