## Facts

- Kay K. Mita, age 84, reported for jury duty at the Spokane County courthouse on a day with subfreezing temperatures and accumulating snow.
- The jury panel was dismissed around noon and instructed to return at 2:00 p.m.; Kay did not return.
- Court staff learned Kay was still on or near the courthouse grounds later that day and that he had been searching for his car for hours.
- A courthouse clerk offered assistance; Kay declined but went back toward the courthouse to seek help from security.
- Guardsmark security officers observed Kay inside the courthouse near a heater, then escorted him out and locked the courthouse.
- Later that evening, Guardsmark officers encountered Kay outside, brought him back inside to warm up, and later required him to leave again despite continued cold weather.
- Kay’s son Floyd called law enforcement to report Kay missing and was told an officer would be sent immediately to look for him; no officer was dispatched, and Floyd did not search himself after receiving the assurance.
- Kay was later found dead near the courthouse steps; the cause of death was hypothermia.
- Kay’s estate and family sued Spokane County and Guardsmark for negligence and wrongful death; the trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants for lack of a legal duty.

## Issues

1. Whether Spokane County owed Kay Mita a duty of reasonable care arising from its role in summoning jurors and operating the courthouse, given Kay’s vulnerability and the known weather risks.
2. Whether Spokane County assumed a duty under voluntary-undertaking principles by assuring Floyd Mita that an officer would immediately search for Kay, inducing reliance.
3. Whether Guardsmark owed Kay a duty of reasonable care based on its control over courthouse access and its affirmative conduct in bringing Kay inside to warm up and later requiring him to leave.
4. Whether summary judgment was improper because reasonable factfinders could conclude that one or both defendants owed and breached a duty that proximately caused Kay’s death.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three reversed summary judgment for Spokane County and Guardsmark.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence and inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, a trier of fact could find that each defendant owed Kay a duty of reasonable care.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligence and wrongful-death claims.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; dismissal is improper if reasonable minds could differ.
- Duty in negligence is generally a question of law, but it may depend on factual determinations about relationships, control, vulnerability, and undertakings.
- A duty to protect or assist may arise from a special relationship or from circumstances where a defendant exercises control over a vulnerable person’s exposure to a known hazard.
- Under voluntary-undertaking doctrine, one who undertakes to render services necessary to protect another must use reasonable care; liability may arise if the undertaking increases the risk of harm or if others reasonably rely on it.
- Assurances by public authorities can support a voluntary undertaking when the promise induces reliance and the promised protective action is not performed.
- A private security contractor’s affirmative intervention and control over access to shelter can support a duty where it takes charge of a vulnerable person and then leaves the person exposed to foreseeable danger.

## Conclusion

The court held that the county and the security contractor were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on duty, because a factfinder could conclude that the county’s juror-related role and search assurances and the guards’ control and assistance-then-expulsion conduct created duties under special-relationship and voluntary-undertaking theories.


Mita v. Guardsmark, LLC, 182 Wash. App. 76 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)