Shizuko Mita v. Guardsmark, LLC
182 Wash. App. 76, 328 P.3d 962 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A duty of care can arise for both public and private entities under the voluntary rescue doctrine and a special relationship, particularly when their actions or promises induce reasonable reliance by the person in need or a third party, or when they take charge of a helpless person and then leave them in a worse position.
Facts:
- On the morning of November 26, 2007, 84-year-old Kay Mita reported to the Spokane County Superior Court as a potential juror.
- The temperature outside was about 23 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill of 17 degrees, and snow accumulated throughout the day.
- Around 12:00 p.m., the trial judge dismissed the jury panel with instructions to return by 2:00 p.m., but Kay did not return.
- Around 5:00 p.m., a trial judge’s court clerk saw Kay in the parking lot; he appeared confused and bewildered, stating he had been searching for his car all afternoon, and he declined her offers of assistance.
- At about 5:10 p.m., a Guardsmark security officer saw Kay enter the courthouse and sit down on a bench next to a heater, but at 5:30 p.m., the officer ushered Kay out the main door and locked the courthouse.
- Between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., Kay’s wife, Shizuko Mita, and his son, Floyd Mita, became very concerned when Kay did not return home from the courthouse.
- Around 6:50 p.m., Floyd called the Spokane Crime Reporting Center (SCRC), a County service, and reported Kay missing, expressing concern about the cold and snow after calling back at 7:11 p.m. to officially report him missing.
- The SCRC call receiver told Floyd, “we will send out a policeman to immediately search for your father” and would contact Floyd when Kay was found, leading Floyd to forgo his own search efforts.
- Around 7:00 p.m., Guardsmark security officers saw Kay pacing outside the main door of the locked courthouse, noting he was cold, sluggish, shivering, underdressed for the subfreezing temperatures, and unable to communicate intelligibly; they brought him inside and seated him next to a heater.
- At 9:00 p.m., the Guardsmark officers ushered Kay back outside the locked courthouse, where it was still snowing and the temperature was about 27 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill of 21 degrees.
- That night, Kay died of hypothermia, slumped against a garbage container near the front steps of the courthouse, and his car was later found in the juror parking area covered with snow.
Procedural Posture:
- The estate of Kay Mita, along with Shizuko Mita and Floyd Mita individually (the Mitas), sued Spokane County (County) and Guardsmark LLC in a trial court for wrongful death based on negligence.
- The County and Guardsmark moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed Kay Mita no duty of care.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Mitas' negligence suit.
- The Mitas appealed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal.
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 public entity (County) owe a common law duty of care to a missing person under the voluntary rescue doctrine or special relationship doctrine when it makes an express promise to send aid upon which a family member reasonably relies, and does a private entity (security company) owe a common law duty of care under the voluntary rescue doctrine when it takes charge of a vulnerable, imperiled person and subsequently discontinues assistance, leaving the person in a worse position?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, A.C.J.
Yes, the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the Mitas’ negligence suit because both Spokane County and Guardsmark LLC owed Kay Mita a common law duty of care. For Spokane County, a duty arose under both the voluntary rescue doctrine and a special relationship. The County, through the Spokane Crime Reporting Center (SCRC), made an express assurance to Floyd Mita that a law enforcement officer would immediately search for Kay. Floyd reasonably relied on this promise by refraining from his own search efforts, which created a duty for the County under the voluntary rescue doctrine. Furthermore, a special relationship was formed, as the County had direct contact with Floyd (who had privity of reliance with Kay), made an express assurance, and Kay, through Floyd, justifiably relied on it. The County should have reasonably foreseen that Kay might be harmed if the officer was not sent, thus establishing privity with Kay that set him apart from the general public. For Guardsmark, a duty arose under a variation of the voluntary rescue doctrine (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324(b)). Guardsmark officers took charge of Kay, who reasonably appeared imperiled by the subfreezing temperatures and snow, and incapable of adequately caring for himself due to his age, underdressing, and confused state. By bringing him inside the locked courthouse and seating him by a heater, Guardsmark intended to assist him. However, by later ushering Kay back outside into the same or a new peril and locking the door, Guardsmark discontinued its assistance, arguably leaving Kay in a worse position than before. This action could have increased the risk of harm by misleading Kay into believing the danger was removed and depriving him of other opportunities for help. The court emphasized that the existence of such a duty, given the facts viewed most favorably to the Mitas, was a legal question properly before them, while factual disputes (like whether SCRC made a promise or Kay’s apparent condition) remained for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of common law duties of care—specifically the voluntary rescue doctrine and the special relationship doctrine—to both public and private entities. It establishes that a public entity's express promise of aid, even if made to a third party, can create a special relationship and a duty if there is reasonable reliance. For private entities, the ruling underscores that once assistance is voluntarily undertaken for a vulnerable person, the helper must not discontinue aid in a manner that leaves the person in a worse position, thereby increasing the risk of harm. The decision highlights that the existence of a legal duty is a threshold question for the court, but factual disputes underlying the duty's formation often preclude summary judgment, ensuring that plaintiffs have their day in court where material facts are contested.
