An important case on liability for city emergency responders was decided in January. Norg v. City of Seattle focused on whether a legal concept known as the “public duty doctrine” bars a suit against a city for a negligent 911 response. The Court decided that the “public duty doctrine” wasn’t a defense from the suit and allowed the underlying negligence claim to be litigated. Our friends at MRSC also did an in-depth write up of the case here.

In 2017, the plaintiff (Mrs. Norg) called 911 for her husband who was having a heart attack. She gave the 911 dispatcher the correct address, which was only a few blocks from the nearest Seattle Fire Department (SFD) station, but it took first responders 15 minutes to arrive because they failed to verify the address and went to the wrong address first. The plaintiff sued, arguing that the department’s delayed response was negligent and aggravated her husband’s injuries. The City responded that the “public duty doctrine” was a defense against the claim.

Generally, state and local governments in Washington have broad liability for tort claims to the same extent as a private entity. However, the “public duty doctrine” has been developed by courts over time to account for the special obligations and unique circumstances of governments compared to private entities. The doctrine states that governments owe a duty to the general public, not a duty to any individual. Essentially, “a duty to all is a duty to no one,” and a government that breaches a duty to the general public can’t be sued for negligence by an individual.

To get around the public duty doctrine, a plaintiff needs to show that the government owed a specific duty to the plaintiff and not just a duty to the general public, and certain exceptions to the public duty doctrine have arisen over time to create a specific duty of care in government. However, in Norg, the Court specifically limited the public duty doctrine to only apply to special governmental obligations imposed by statute or ordinance, not to common law negligence of duties of reasonable care.

In Norg, the Court found that the public duty doctrine didn't protect the City of Seattle from suit for its allegedly delayed 911 response. A common law duty of reasonable care in rendering aid to a stranger can arise when a party (like SFD) voluntarily begins to assist the person needing help. The Court reasoned that the dispatcher taking the Norgs’ address and assuring the Norgs that help was on the way, created a common law duty of reasonable care towards the Norgs individually, not a generalized governmental duty or a statutory duty to an individual subject to the public duty doctrine. The Court also clarified that no prior case has specifically applied the public duty doctrine bar claims of common law duties of care, and it clarified that the doctrine specifically doesn’t apply to common law negligence claims.

The Court didn’t find the City’s argument for applying the public duty doctrine persuasive since it relied on cases that only addressed the function of the doctrine itself, and not whether the doctrine applied to a common law negligence case. It also found that if a private ambulance service had been negligent in the way the Seattle Fire Department had, it would have been subject to common law negligence claims, strengthening the case that SFD should be held as liable for negligence as a similarly situated private entity would have.

The Court’s final holding found the plaintiffs had established that the City owed them an individualized, actionable duty of care when it undertook the 911 call and response. Since the claim was based in common law negligence and not a statutory duty, the public duty doctrine does not bar the suit and the negligence case could proceed in trial court. The opinion did not decide the ultimate issue of liability, only that the public duty doctrine does not bar a common lawsuit for negligence.

The ultimate take away for cities from this case is that cities might create a common law duty of care for themselves towards individuals requesting a city service, and that the public duty doctrine may not protect the city against common law negligence claims if they fail to discharge the duty of reasonable care. Cities should consult with their legal counsel about how Norg may impact their liability. Cities may also want to consider reviewing their practices and procedures, especially in cases like emergency first response, to ensure avoidable mistakes are not made, and that the city meets its common law duty of care to individuals when/if such relationships are established.