Legal Opinion

Caulfield v. Kitsap County

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 24, 2001No. 25795-5-IIPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBridgewater, J.

Kitsap County appeals a judgment against it for negligence in the management of Jay Caulfield’s in-home care resulting in severe personal injuries. The County contends that the public duty doctrine applied and it was immune from suit. We hold that when the County undertook in-home care management for Caulfield, who was already a profoundly disabled, vulnerable adult with multiple sclerosis, a special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine applied. The County also contends the trial court erred by improperly admitting evidence under ER 904 and by denying its motion for a new trial…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Petersen v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Taggart v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. King v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Taylor v. Stevens CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1988

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Winegar v. Froerer Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Gregoire v. City of Oak HarborWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Gregoire v. City of Oak HarborWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  4. H.B.H. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Donohoe v. StateCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API