Jacob Ivan Schmitt v. Pollard Faalogo, 37974-4

Background:

On June 17, 2014, inmates Jacob Schmitt and Pollard Faalogo were housed in adjacent cells in a Pierce County Jail maximum-security unit; after a deputy did an early-morning welfare check, Faalogo entered Schmitt’s cell and assaulted him.
Fellow inmate Jake Belanger witnessed the assault from his cell, reported it to deputies, and believed Schmitt’s emergency call light at the staff station was illuminated during the attack; Deputy Wales testified he did not see a call light.
Schmitt suffered multiple injuries, was hospitalized, and was discharged with prescriptions and orders (including extra mattresses); Schmitt alleges the jail failed to provide prescribed pain medication for several days.
Schmitt sued Pierce County, deputies, and medical contractors; Pierce County moved for summary judgment and submitted an operations expert (Richard Bishop) attesting that housing/classification and response practices met professional standards.
The superior court granted summary judgment for Pierce County and denied Schmitt’s request for a continuance to obtain an expert; Schmitt appealed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to challenge jail classification and recreation protocols (failure to prevent assault)	Schmitt: no expert needed; protocols violated basic safety duties	Pierce County: these are professional, complex operational judgments; expert required and its expert shows compliance	Held: Expert required; summary judgment affirmed as to failure-to-prevent claim
Whether failure to respond to an illuminated emergency call light is a jury question requiring expert evidence	Schmitt: call light evidence (Belanger/Schmitt) shows deputies negligently failed to respond	Pierce County: its expert disputes the call-light testimony and shows reasonable response	Held: No expert needed; factual dispute about whether the call light was illuminated creates a triable issue — summary judgment reversed on this claim
Whether failure to provide prescribed pain medications is a nondelegable duty and requires expert proof	Schmitt: jail has a nondelegable duty to provide prescribed meds; ordinary negligence suffices	Pierce County: medical issues require expert proof; or delegatee liability addresses it	Held: No expert needed for the narrow claim of failing to supply prescribed medication; summary judgment reversed on this claim
Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying Schmitt a continuance to obtain an expert	Schmitt: needed more time to secure expert to oppose summary judgment	Pierce County: Schmitt already had a continuance and didn’t show how an expert would create a factual dispute	Held: Trial court denied continuance; appellate decision did not reverse that ruling and remanded for proceedings on surviving claims

Key Cases Cited

Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (2000) (standard of review for summary judgment and view of facts for nonmoving party)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421 (1983) (expert testimony generally not required for negligence except when professional standards are at issue)
Harris v. Robert C. Groth, M.D., Inc., 99 Wn.2d 438 (1983) (professional-standard negligence claims often require expert proof)
Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wn.2d 217 (1991) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, injury, causation)
Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wn.2d 628 (2010) (municipal duty to ensure inmate health, welfare, and safety)
Winston v. Dep’t of Corr., 130 Wn. App. 61 (2005) (requirements for proving correctional negligence in housing/classification)
Webb v. Wash. State Univ., 15 Wn. App. 2d 505 (2020) (definition of material fact for summary judgment)
Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506 (1988) (materiality standard for facts affecting litigation outcome)