With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment
B: holding a duty to warn arises only when the potential victim is known and foreseeable
C: 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
D: holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through general knowledge
B.