County did not “take charge” of Rosenow because it had no authority to control him. And it had no “special relationship” duty to warn the Osborns because Jennie Mae Osborn was not a foreseeable victim of Rosenow. C. Mason County Had No Duty To Warn the Osborns under the Rescue Doctrine ¶11 Nor does the rescue doctrine apply because the Osborns did not rely on Mason County’s assurances. The Court of Appeals mistakenly concluded reliance “is not a necessary element” of the rescue doctrine, holding Mason County had a duty to warn because it increased Osborn’s risk of injury by promising to warn, failing to warn, and discouraging a third party from warning. Osborn, 122 Wn. App. at 835. On the contrary, reliance is the linchpin of the rescue doctrine. f 12 Under t 859-60, 5 P.3d 49 (2000) (<HOLDING>). So, in Brown, a duty existed because the
holding that by promulgating safety standards for residential inground swimming pools a trade association did not assume a duty to warn consumers of the danger of shallow diving holding duty to warn exists only if public entity makes assurances that could give rise to justifiable reliance holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding trade association voluntarily assumed the duty to warn because manufacturers relied upon assurances holding a condominium association had no duty to a woman who had committed suicide after the association removed the womans dog because while the association knew the dog was essential to the womans will to live the association had no authority to prevent the womans suicide