Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257, 753 P.2d 523 (1987). That “special” duty exists because a public entity’s assurances may induce reliance. “A person who voluntarily promises to perform a service for another in need has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the promise induces reliance and causes the promisee to refrain from seeking help elsewhere.” Folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 676. See also Couch, 113 Wn. App. at 572 n.66 (finding no duty under rescue doctrine without reliance). And see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, cmt. d (1965) (“There is no essential reason why the breach of a promise which has induced reliance and so caused harm should not be actionable in tort.”). Cf. Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972) (<HOLDING>). A person may reasonably rely on explicit or
holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding due process protects reasonable reliance on assurances of public entity holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense