RCW 4.24.550 created an implied duty to warn of the presence of a sex offender. Clerk’s Papers at 316-17. Its conclusion follows inexorably from the plain language of the statute: “Except as may otherwise be provided by law, nothing in this section shall impose any liability upon a public official, public employee, or public agency for failing to release information authorized under this section.” Former RCW 4.24.550(6). Thus, former RCW 4.24.550 neither imposed a duty to warn nor conferred immunity from liability for failure to warn. B. Mason County Had No “Take Charge” Duty To Warn the Osborns ¶ eeable victims of criminals, mental patients, and others leaving its custody. See Petersen, 100 Wn.2d at 428-29. See also Doyle v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 1278, 1288 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (<HOLDING>); Hoff v. Vacaville Unified Sch. Dist., 19 Cal.
holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding a duty to warn arises only when the potential victim is known and foreseeable holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through general knowledge holding that common law duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person