328 P.3d 962
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kay Mita, 84, died of hypothermia after being left outside the Spokane County Courthouse during a snowstorm.
- Kay, a potential juror, failed to return to the jury room; the day was in the 20s with ongoing snow; witnesses noted he seemed confused to some, while later affidavits described him as coherent.
- A Guardsmark security officer moved Kay inside to a heater, then later ushered him back outside when the courthouse doors were closed for the night.
- Floyd Mita (Kay’s son) and Shizuko Mita (Kay’s wife) sought help; the county’s Missed Person Reporting Center (SCRC) was told to search but did not transmit a report or prompt a search.
- The Mitas sued Spokane County and Guardsmark for wrongful death based on negligence; both defendants obtained summary judgment on duty grounds.
- The court reverses and remands, holding there are triable issues about whether a duty existed under voluntary rescue and special relationship theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the County owe Kay a duty under common law? | County owed duty via voluntary rescue and special relationship. | No duty exists unless clearly foreseen or recognized. | Duty exists; remand for further proceedings. |
| Did Guardsmark owe Kay a duty under the voluntary rescue doctrine? | Guardsmark assumed care and worsened Kay’s plight by returning him to peril. | No duty under rescue doctrine; no clear peril relationship. | Duty exists; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658 (Wash. 1998) (voluntary rescue doctrine; duty when undertaking aid)
- Brown v. MacPherson’s, Inc., 86 Wn.2d 293 (Wash. 1975) (imminent peril and rescue duties)
- Osborn v. Mason County, 157 Wn.2d 18 (Wash. 2006) (reliance on third party in rescue context)
- Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275 (Wash. 1983) (special relationship and privity concepts)
- Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communications Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871 (Wash. 2012) (public duty doctrine exceptions; foreseeability considerations)
- Bratton v. Welp, 145 Wn.2d 572 (Wash. 2002) (privity and duty in public-entity context)
- Cummins v. Lewis County, 156 Wn.2d 844 (Wash. 2006) (public entity duty and foreseeability)
- Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769 (Wash. 1998) (justifiable reliance; public duties to individuals)
- Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wn.2d 159 (Wash. 1988) (special relationship elements in duty)
- McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 136 Wn.2d 350 (Wash. 1998) (imminent peril and rescue doctrine nuances)
- French v. Chase, 48 Wn.2d 825 (Wash. 1956) (imminent peril concept in rescue context)
- Webstad v. Stortini, 83 Wn. App. 857 (Wash. App. 1996) (imminent peril and rescue doctrine discussion)