In a recent ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims filed by Frederick Burney against Snohomish County, the City of Lynnwood, and Snohomish County 911 (Sno911). The case, which stemmed from a violent incident involving Burney and another individual, raised significant questions about the duty of care owed by public entities in emergency situations.
Burney was stabbed multiple times by Robert LeMasters, who was experiencing a mental health crisis at the time. Following the attack, Burney filed a lawsuit claiming that the county and city failed to provide adequate emergency response, which he argued constituted negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court's decision is important as it clarifies the legal responsibilities of public entities when responding to mental health emergencies.
Background
Frederick Burney, the appellant in this case, was attacked in February 2022 by Robert LeMasters, who had a documented history of mental health issues. Prior to the stabbing, LeMasters had been reported to local authorities multiple times for threatening behavior and harassment. Despite these warnings, the police did not take significant action to intervene before the incident occurred.
Burney's lawsuit named Snohomish County, the City of Lynnwood, and Sno911 as defendants, alleging that they acted negligently by failing to respond appropriately to calls regarding LeMasters' mental health crisis. Burney contended that the authorities had a duty to protect him from harm, given the prior knowledge of LeMasters' unstable condition.
The case reached the Washington Court of Appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they did not owe a duty of care to Burney. This ruling prompted Burney to appeal, arguing that the court had erred in its decision.
The Ruling
The Washington Court of Appeals, in its ruling on July 28, 2026, upheld the trial court's decision. The court found that none of the defendants owed Burney a duty of care under the public duty doctrine. This legal principle asserts that governmental entities are only liable for negligence if they owe a specific duty to an individual rather than a general duty to the public.
The court ruled, "We hold that the trial court did not err by granting the respondents’ motions, as none of the respondents owed Burney a duty of care."
Judges Cruser, Veljacic, and Lee concurred in the decision. The court emphasized that Burney's claims were based on the public duty doctrine, which limits the ability of individuals to sue government entities unless they can demonstrate a special relationship or a specific duty owed to them.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for how public entities respond to emergency situations, particularly those involving individuals with mental health issues. It reinforces the idea that while public entities have a responsibility to respond to emergencies, they may not be held liable for failing to prevent harm unless a specific duty of care can be established.
The outcome of this case may discourage similar lawsuits against public entities in the future, as it highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving that a duty of care existed. It also raises questions about the adequacy of emergency response protocols for mental health crises, which may need to be addressed by lawmakers and public safety officials.
What's Next
Burney's legal options appear limited following this ruling, as the decision can be difficult to appeal further. The court's affirmation of the lower court's ruling effectively ends his claims against the county and city. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.