Ahmet Hopovac v. State of Washington
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
*819Lawrence-Berrey, J.
¶1 We answer the question of whether the Department of Corrections (Department) owes a duty of care to protect felons under its supervision from the intentional torts of third parties. For such a duty to exist, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) (Am. Law Inst. 1965) would require felons to be in the custody of the Department under circumstances such as to deprive them of their normal opportunities for protection. We determine that standard community custody conditions, such as those here, do not deprive felons of their normal opportunities for protection. We,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Nivens v. CornerWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's CornerWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Kusah v. McCorkleWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Gregoire v. City of Oak HarborWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Shea v. City of SpokaneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Quinteros v. InnoGamesDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020