Undertaker's doctrine

As described by the Florida Supreme Court, the Undertaker's doctrine provides that:


 * In every situation where a man undertakes to act, or to pursue a particular course, he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured by any force which he sets in operation, or by any agent for which he is responsible. If he fails to exercise the degree of caution which the law requires in a particular situation, he is held liable for any damage that results to another, just as if he had bound himself by an obligatory promise to exercise the required degree of care. Street's Foundations of Legal Liability, vol. 1 page 92. And even ‘where a man interferes gratuitously, he is bound to act in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the circumstances and opportunities of the case.

Whipple v. D&D Tree Farms, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Wkly D1442, [Case No. 3D09-2837] (Fla. 3D DCA July 1, 2011), citing Banfield v. Addington, 140 So. 893, 896 (Fla. 1932).

In Whipple the defendants voluntarily undertook to build a perimeter fence around the subject property. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent in the installation or repair of the fence. The Defendant alleged, as an Affirmative Defense to the suit that it was under no obligation to build the fence in the first place. The Third DCA applied the undertaker's doctrine and determined that this argument provided no defense at all:


 * Whipple admits that the defendants did not have a duty to erect a fence, but he argues that according to the undertaker’s doctrine, once the fence was built, the defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to maintain that fence. We agree.