Gorman v. Pierce County

¶63 (dissenting in part) — I concur with the majority’s analysis in Parts II through VI regarding jury instructions on Pierce County’s duty, evidence of prior complaints, denial of Sue Ann Gorman’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, the emergency doctrine instruction, and sufficiency of the evidence. But because the majority misconstrues the county ordinance and misapplies the public duty doctrine, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion in Part I.B that the failure to enforce exception to the public duty doctrine applies here.

¶64 When a governmental entity is sued for…