Hertog v. City of Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, J.
— In Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 822 P.2d 243 (1992), we held that a state parole officer has a duty to protect others from reasonably foreseeable danger resulting from the dangerous propensities of parolees. At issue in this case is whether a similar duty exists on the part of a city probation counselor and a county pretrial release counselor. We conclude that a duty exists in each situation, and that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment. Further, materials sought by plaintiff concerning treatment for sexual deviancy and substance *269abuse are discoverable under the facts…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Petersen v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Taggart v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by243 opinions
- HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Ranger Insurance v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
238 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.