## Facts

- Priscilla O’Malley stayed alone at a hotel where she and her husband had timeshare privileges.
- After routinely communicating earlier that evening, Priscilla stopped answering calls from her husband, Michael O’Malley.
- Michael contacted the hotel front desk, requested assistance, and made repeated calls to Priscilla’s room and cell phone without success.
- A front desk clerk asked a maintenance worker, Saul Ramos, assigned to the hotel through Hospitality Staffing Solutions (HSS), to check on Priscilla.
- Ramos checked and reported back that no one was in the room; the details of what he was told to do and what he did were disputed.
- Hours later, Michael went to the hotel room and found Priscilla on the floor after suffering a brain aneurysm.
- The O’Malleys alleged the inadequate check and the “no one is there” report delayed discovery and treatment, worsening Priscilla’s injuries.
- The trial court granted HSS summary judgment on the ground HSS owed no duty; the O’Malleys appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether HSS, through its employee’s welfare check and report, assumed a duty of reasonable care to the O’Malleys under a negligent undertaking theory.
2. Whether disputed facts about the scope and performance of the welfare check, and resulting reliance or increased risk of harm, precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for HSS.
- The court held triable issues of material fact existed as to whether Ramos undertook to render services necessary for Priscilla’s protection and whether he failed to exercise reasonable care.
- The court concluded it could not determine as a matter of law that HSS owed no duty, given factual disputes about instructions, actions taken, and the content and effect of Ramos’s report.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Ordinarily, a person has no duty to aid another; however, a duty may arise when a person undertakes to provide assistance and must then exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking.
- Under negligent undertaking principles (including Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323), liability may arise when one undertakes to render services necessary for another’s protection, performs negligently, and either:
  - increases the risk of harm, or
  - causes harm because others rely on the undertaking.
- Whether an undertaking occurred, its scope, and whether reliance or increased risk resulted can be fact-intensive questions that may prevent resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that HSS was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable factfinder could conclude the maintenance worker’s welfare check and “all clear” report created a duty under negligent undertaking principles and that disputed facts about performance and reliance required trial-level resolution.


O’Malley v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions, 20 Cal. App. 5th 21, 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 731 (Ct. App. 2018)