The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on the issue of duty of care when defendant moved for summary judgment, and its statement of undisputed facts related, only to the different issue of causation.  A court may grant a summary judgment motion on an issue not raised by the moving party, but only if the moving party’s statement of undisputed facts states, and the nonmovant does not raise triable issues, as to facts that support the issue on which the court grants summary judgment.  And in that case, the court must also give the nonmovant an opportunity to respond to the new issue.  Here, neither of those conditions was satisfied, so it was error to grant summary judgment on the new issue.  Also, the trial court was wrong in holding that a special relationship giving rise to a duty to affirmatively act to protect the plaintiff against harm could not arise from a contract between the parties.  Such a duty can arise from contract under the negligent undertaking doctrine.  Whether the Automobile Club’s towing service contract gave rise to such a duty was a question of fact that the summary judgment papers did not address.