## Facts

- Two plaintiffs were injured in separate violent crimes committed by different parolees who were under state community supervision.
- Victoria Taggart was assaulted by parolee Louie Brock in April 1985 while Brock was on parole and had an extensive history of violent and sexual misconduct and substance abuse.
- Taggart alleged the State was negligent both in (1) releasing Brock (negligent parole release) and (2) supervising him after release (negligent parole supervision), including failures to conduct required monitoring and maintain collateral contacts.
- Shane Sandau was raped by parolee Keith Geyman while Geyman was on parole and had a violent history and repeated supervision violations.
- Sandau alleged negligent parole supervision, including that the parole officer attempted to initiate reincarceration for repeated violations but failed to complete paperwork and obtain a warrant, leaving Geyman in the community.
- In both cases, trial courts granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed all claims; the cases were consolidated for review.
- On summary judgment, the appellate court was required to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties.

## Issues

1. Whether immunity shields the parole board or parole officers from claims alleging negligent parole release or negligent parole supervision.
2. Whether the public duty doctrine bars claims alleging negligent parole supervision.
3. Whether proximate causation fails as a matter of law because the parolees’ criminal acts were superseding causes.

## Decision

- The court held the parole board is entitled to absolute immunity for parole release decisions.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Taggart’s negligent parole release claim.
- The court held parole officers’ day-to-day supervisory conduct is protected only by qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.
- The court held the public duty doctrine was not a proper basis to dismiss the negligent supervision claims.
- The court held proximate cause could not be resolved against the plaintiffs as a matter of law on summary judgment; causation was for the trier of fact on these allegations.
- The court reversed dismissal of both plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claims and remanded for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Parole board release decisions are quasi-judicial functions protected by absolute immunity from damages actions challenging the release decision.
- Parole officers’ operational supervision (monitoring compliance, responding to violations, initiating revocation processes) is executive/administrative conduct protected, at most, by qualified immunity.
- The public duty doctrine does not categorically bar negligent supervision claims where the State undertakes supervision of identified parolees and the alleged negligence involves supervision-specific obligations with foreseeable risk to third parties.
- A parolee’s intervening criminal act is not necessarily a superseding cause as a matter of law; where prior history and known violations make harm foreseeable, proximate cause may present a jury question.

## Conclusion

The court drew a sharp distinction between immune parole release decisions and potentially actionable supervision failures, allowing negligent supervision claims against the State to proceed to trial while barring damages claims premised on the parole board’s release decision.


Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992)