Legal Opinion · Dissent

Beal v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1998No. 64848-4Published

1DissentTalmadge, J.

(dissenting) — Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a complaint naming plaintiffs who had no standing to sue the defendant.6 Rather than dismissing the case, the majority condones counsel’s conduct and allows counsel to avoid the effect of a statute of limitation he missed by 94 days. More significant because of its impact on existing law, however, is the majority’s treatment of the public duty doctrine. The majority makes municipalities insurers of all of the consequences of responses to 911 calls. I respectfully dissent.

A. Relation Back of the Amended Complaint

Although the majority opinion engages in…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty.Supreme Court of Florida · 1979
  2. Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Coffey v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Taylor v. Stevens CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Brennen v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 1979

13 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