## Facts

- Baerbel K. Roznowski obtained a temporary antiharassment protection order against her partner, Paul Chan Kim, under RCW chapter 10.14.
- The Federal Way Police Department was responsible for serving the order pursuant to the statute’s mandatory service requirements.
- Roznowski provided police an information sheet stating Kim was unaware of the order, had previously assaulted her, was likely to react violently to service, and required a Korean interpreter.
- A Federal Way police officer served Kim with the order while Kim and Roznowski were together at Roznowski’s home.
- The officer left without separating the parties, taking safety measures for Roznowski, securing an interpreter, or ensuring Kim understood the order.
- Roznowski then had to explain the order to Kim herself.
- Later the same day, Kim fatally stabbed Roznowski and then died by suicide.
- Roznowski’s daughters sued the City for negligence and respondeat superior liability, alleging negligent service of the order proximately caused the death.
- The trial court denied the City’s summary judgment and later denied the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law; the jury found the City negligent and awarded damages.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on waiver grounds, and the Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide the duty/public duty doctrine question.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality owes a protected person a common law duty of reasonable care when serving an antiharassment protection order, or whether the public duty doctrine bars such a duty and tort liability.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held the City had a statutory duty to serve the antiharassment order.
- Because the City had a duty to act, it also had a duty to act with reasonable care in serving the order.
- The public duty doctrine did not bar the negligence claim under these circumstances.
- The court affirmed denial of summary judgment and denial of judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury verdict intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington’s public duty doctrine, government liability generally requires a duty owed to the plaintiff rather than a duty owed only to the public at large.
- When a statute imposes a mandatory, specific governmental obligation intended to protect an identifiable class of persons (such as the protected person named in a protection order), performance of that obligation can support a duty to the intended beneficiary.
- An actor who undertakes a legally required task must perform it with reasonable care; statutory duty to act can carry a corresponding common law duty of non-negligent performance.
- In serving protection orders, reasonable care may require steps consistent with the order’s protective purpose, including addressing known safety risks and communication barriers when those risks are conveyed to law enforcement.

## Conclusion

Washington recognized that mandatory service of an antiharassment protection order is not merely a duty to the public; once police undertake that statutory task, they owe the protected person a duty of reasonable care in carrying it out, and the public duty doctrine does not bar negligence liability for careless service that foreseeably increases the protected person’s risk of harm.


Washburn v. City of Fed. Way, 310 P.3d 1275 (Wash. 2013)