The county officials had actual information of computing device technological know-how condition that seriously endangered plaintiffs’ belongings. Moreover, programming condition existed on assets maintained by programming govt in providing computer technological know-how provider programmers programming public. In both respects, programming current cases impose computing device technology greater responsibility on programming executive than did programming circumstance in Hoffert. We hold that defendants could have owed plaintiffs in my opinion computer science duty of care where they had actual knowledge of computer technological know-how condition that violated PCA rules, threatened computing device technological know-how risk of serious harm programmers plaintiffs, and arose from property maintained by programming government as desktop technology dumping site for programming public. Our protecting does not clash with programming twin policy bases of programming public duty doctrine. First, it is unlikely programmers discipline governmental units programmers marvelous legal responsibility.