Baerbel K. Roznowski got an anti-harassment order against her partner, Paul Chan Kim. The court order required Kim to leave Roznowski’s home, and not come near Roznowski.
Roznowski asked the Federal Way Police Department to serve the order. She completed a “law enforcement information sheet” for the police department. On the information sheet Roznowski indicated that Kim was her domestic partner, that Kim did not know she had obtained an anti-harassment order, that Kim did not know the anti-harassment order would force him out of Roznowski’s home, and that Kim would likely react violently to service of the order.
An officer came to the home. Kim answered the door. The officer could see Roznowski in the home behind Kim. The officer served the anti-harassment order on Kim and left. A short time later Kim killed Roznowski.
Roznowski’s family sued the city. The city moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Roznowski’s family. The city appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. The Washington Supreme Court also upheld the jury verdict.[1]
The City argued it was not liable under the public duty doctrine. Under the public duty doctrine state and local governments in Washington are not liable if the duty is to the public at large, as opposed to specific persons or classes of persons. For example, government is not liable for sovereign acts such as holding elections, issuing permits, inspecting buildings, or maintaining the peace.
One exception to the public duty doctrine is the legislative intent doctrine. A legal duty is owed where a legislative enactment “evidences a clear legislative intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.” Here the Washington legislature showed an intent to protect specific individuals by passing the statute that requires law enforcement to serve anti-harassment orders.
In the statute the legislature declared, “The legislature finds that serious, personal harassment through repeated invasions of a person’s privacy by acts and words showing a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim is increasing. The legislature further finds that the prevention of such harassment is an important governmental objective.”[2] To give effect to this intent to protect victims of harassment, the statute creates an anti-harassment order to “prevent all further unwanted contact between the victim and the perpetrator” and requires municipal police officers to serve the order unless the petitioner chooses otherwise.[3]
The City argued that the statute does not impose a “mandatory duty to guarantee the safety of citizens who obtain anti-harassment orders.” The Washington Supreme Court ruled that while the statute imposes no duty to guarantee the safety of citizens like Roznowski, it does impose on police officers a duty to serve anti-harassment orders. If the order is served negligently, the City may be held liable.
Generally parties are not liable for the criminal acts of others. This is because criminal acts are not foreseeable. Under limited circumstances, though, an actor’s duty to act reasonably includes a duty to take steps to guard another against the criminal conduct of a third party. A party may be negligent if the actor realizes or should realize that its actions involve an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of a third person which is intended to cause harm, even though such conduct is criminal.
Here, the Court held that the police officer owed Roznowski a duty to guard against the criminal conduct of Kim. The Court based this conclusion on several factors.
First, the officer knew, or should have known, that Kim could or would react violently to the service of the anti-harassment order for several reasons. Roznowski alerted police to this fact in the law enforcement information sheet. Police are generally aware of the problem of separation violence, which is one reason they have people complete a law enforcement information sheet.
Second, the officer knew or should have known that he was serving Kim at Roznowski’s house – again the information sheet informed him of this – and he should have known that the woman he saw in the background was Roznowski given that he served Kim at her house.
The police officer could have taken simple steps to eliminate the risk to Roznowski. He could have ordered Kim to leave the house and stood by to make sure Kim did so without harming Roznowski. However, did neither of these things. He walked away, leaving Roznowski alone in her house to face Kim’s reaction to service of the anti-harassment order.
The legal analysis of whether state or local government is responsible for someone’s injury can get rather nuanced. If you believe you have been injured by governmental actions or omissions you should consult with an attorney.
By personal injury attorney Travis Scott Eller
[1] Washburn v. City of Federal Way, ____ Wn.2d ____ (87906-1 October 17, 2013).
[2] RCW 10.14.010.
[3] RCW 10.14.010, .100(2)