O'Malley v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC
20 Cal. App. 5th 21, 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d … (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who voluntarily undertakes to render services to another, which they should recognize as necessary for the other's protection, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting from their failure to exercise reasonable care if the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking.
Facts:
- Priscilla O'Malley checked into a hotel room in the afternoon.
- Her husband, Michael O'Malley, became concerned after she failed to answer his repeated phone calls for several hours.
- At about 10:30 p.m., Michael called the hotel front desk, explained his fear that his wife might be injured, and asked for someone to check her room.
- A hotel clerk instructed maintenance worker Saul Ramos, an employee of Hospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS), to perform the welfare check.
- Ramos went to the room and subsequently reported back to the clerk that no one was inside.
- The clerk relayed this information to Michael, who, relying on the report, delayed driving to the hotel.
- Around 5:00 a.m. the next morning, Michael arrived at the hotel, entered the room, and found Priscilla on the floor suffering from a brain aneurysm.
- A doctor later stated that Priscilla's injuries would have been less severe had she received medical treatment earlier.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Priscilla O'Malley filed a complaint alleging negligence in the trial court.
- The O'Malleys later amended the complaint to add Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC (HSS) as a defendant.
- HSS filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to the O'Malleys.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of HSS.
- The O'Malleys (appellants) appealed the trial court's ruling to the Court of Appeal, with HSS as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a maintenance worker, who voluntarily agrees to perform a welfare check on a hotel guest at the request of the guest's concerned spouse, assume a legal duty of care to perform that check non-negligently?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Acting P. J.
Yes, a maintenance worker who voluntarily agrees to perform a welfare check on a hotel guest assumes a legal duty of care to perform that check non-negligently. Although there is generally no duty to come to the aid of another, a person who voluntarily undertakes to do so must exercise reasonable care. This is known as the "negligent undertaking" theory of liability. Here, there are triable issues of material fact as to the precise nature and scope of the duty Ramos undertook when he agreed to check on Priscilla. A jury could reasonably infer that the risk of Priscilla being incapacitated was foreseeable given her husband's expressed concerns, and that Michael's reliance on Ramos's inaccurate report caused a delay in treatment that exacerbated her injuries. Therefore, summary judgment was improper as the scope of the duty and the question of breach must be decided by a trier of fact.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the "negligent undertaking" doctrine, clarifying that the scope of a voluntarily assumed duty can be a question of fact for a jury, especially when the nature of the undertaking is disputed. It highlights that even a gratuitous act can create significant legal liability if performed carelessly and relied upon by another to their detriment. The ruling serves as a caution to businesses and their agents that volunteering assistance can create a legal duty of reasonable care where none would otherwise exist, particularly when another person's safety is foreseeably at stake.
Unlock the full brief for O'Malley v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC