Background
On June 14, 2021, Amber Keith was the sole registered occupant of Room 214 at a Ramada Inn in Kent, Washington. At approximately 10:30 a.m., a hotel housekeeper and other guests heard violent sounds from the room—screaming, things breaking, a female voice saying “stop choking me,” “stop pushing me,” and “leave me alone.” Hotel security officer Philip Roush responded to the room, heard the same sounds, and at 10:56 a.m. called the Kent police non-emergency line, which connected him to Valley Communications Center (VCC)—the 911 and dispatch agency for Kent. Roush told the VCC employee that it sounded like someone was being murdered, gave the room’s address, and described the situation as urgent: “ASAP, ‘cause somebody’s getting murdered over here.”
The VCC employee entered into the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system that Roush had reported “domestic violence,” assigned the call a priority level 2 (not the higher priority 1), and noted that transients might be involved and that there were no weapons. The employee placed the call on “hold” without informing Roush, while telling Roush that help was being dispatched and would arrive “as quickly as they can.” Over the next 47 minutes, Roush called back twice more, reporting continued disturbing sounds. At 11:43 a.m., Lopez—who was in the room with Keith—called 911 claiming his fiancée had overdosed; VCC assigned that call priority 1 and dispatched immediately. Emergency personnel arrived within minutes but Amber Keith was pronounced dead. Lopez was later convicted of her murder.
Keith’s estate and family sued VCC for negligence, alleging that VCC employees negligently classified Roush’s initial call at a lower priority and placed it on hold, causing a fatal delay in emergency response. They also brought a negligent supervision and training claim. The trial court dismissed both claims under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, concluding VCC owed no actionable duty. The estate appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Division I partially reversed. Washington’s public duty doctrine limits government tort liability to duties owed to specific individuals rather than the public at large; if the alleged duty was owed to the public generally, a negligence claim fails unless an exception applies. Norg v. City of Seattle, 200 Wn.2d 749 (2023). The four recognized exceptions are failure to enforce, legislative intent, the rescue doctrine, and a special relationship. The court focused on the special relationship exception, which requires: (1) direct contact or privity between the government official and the injured plaintiff; (2) express assurances given by the government official; and (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on those assurances.
The court held that the estate’s complaint stated a legally sufficient negligence claim under each element. On privity, the court applied the rule that privity encompasses “any reasonably foreseeable plaintiff”—Roush’s report identified Keith as the victim in a specific room, making her a foreseeable plaintiff in relation to VCC’s response even though she never called in herself. On express assurances, the VCC employee told Roush that help was dispatched and would arrive “as quickly as they can.” On justifiable reliance, Roush and Keith could reasonably rely on those assurances and forego other measures. The court reversed dismissal of the negligence claim and remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
The court affirmed dismissal of the negligent supervision and training claim. Washington law requires that such a claim be grounded in an employee’s tortious conduct occurring outside the scope of employment. The estate’s complaint described the VCC employees’ dispatch errors as occurring in the course of performing their ordinary dispatching duties—on-duty, within-scope conduct. Because the predicate allegation (conduct outside the scope of employment) was absent, the negligent supervision claim was properly dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Under Washington’s public duty doctrine, a 911 dispatch agency can be subject to a negligence claim under the special relationship exception when a dispatcher takes a call about an identified victim in an identified location, makes assurances that help is coming, and then delays or downgrades the response—even if the victim never personally communicated with the agency.
- The “privity” element of the special relationship exception does not require direct contact between the government entity and the ultimate victim; a caller who reports the location and identity of a crime victim creates a foreseeable plaintiff-government relationship encompassing that victim under Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844 (2006).
- A negligent supervision and training claim against a government employer requires an allegation that the offending employee was acting outside the scope of employment; routine on-duty dispatching errors, however negligent, do not satisfy that predicate.
- This decision arises at the CR 12(b)(6) pleading stage; VCC retains the ability on remand to contest whether the special relationship elements were actually established on the developed facts.
Why It Matters
Bartlett v. Valley Communications Center is a significant development in Washington law governing 911 dispatch agency liability. The public duty doctrine has long insulated government emergency responders from broad tort liability, and its application to dispatch agencies has been hotly litigated. This decision clarifies that the special relationship exception is not limited to victims who personally call 911—it extends to reasonably foreseeable victims reported by third-party callers who receive assurances of dispatch. The privity element is satisfied when the caller identifies a specific victim in a specific location, connects with a dispatcher, and receives express assurances in return.
The practical implication is that when a 911 or non-emergency dispatcher takes a call about an identified victim, makes assurances about response, and then downgrades or delays that response, a negligence claim is plausible and survives a motion to dismiss. Dispatch agencies, cities, and counties across Washington should review their call-classification protocols, training programs, and CAD documentation practices in light of this decision. For plaintiffs’ counsel, the decision provides a clear pleading road map: allege the call, the specific assurances, the foreseeable victim relationship, and the departure from the assured response. For defense counsel, the battleground on remand will be whether the special relationship was actually established on the facts—the ruling resolves only the legal sufficiency of the complaint.