There’s an old saying you may be familiar with—if you’re going to do a job, do it right. That saying is particularly relevant to today’s discussion of the so-called Undertaker Doctrine.
Under Florida law, a person may owe a duty of care to another person for a variety of reasons. For example, property owners have a duty to ensure that their property is in a reasonably safe condition for those invited onto to the property. But there are other, less intuitive circumstances that might result in a person owing a duty of care to a third-party. One such circumstance is where a person undertakes a duty.
Under the so-called “undertaker doctrine,” a company that undertakes to provide some service to another party—whether for free or through some contract—owes a duty to perform that service carefully and not, through its performance, put third-parties in danger. Limones v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cty., 161 So.3d 384, 388 n.3 (Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
A company will be found to have undertaken such a duty intwo alternative factual scenarios. First, if the company provides a service in such a careless way that it made things worse for the third-party Id. (holding that “[t]he undertaker is subject to liability if . . . he or she fails to exercise reasonable care, which results in increased harm to the beneficiary”). And second, if a third-party relied on the company providing a particular service and, as a result of that reliance, was harmed. Id. (holding that an undertaker is liable if “the beneficiary relies upon the undertaker and is harmed as a result”).
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003) nicely illustrates how the undertaker doctrine works in the first factual scenario. There, Jacksonville Electric Authority hired a company called Clay Electric to maintain streetlights. Id. at 1189. Because one of those streetlights was inoperative one early morning, a truck struck and killed a young boy. Id. The boy’s family sued Clay Electric, arguing that the company owed a duty to the boy. Id. at 1185. The trial court granted summary judgment to Clay Electric, holding that the company owed no duty of care to the young boy. Id. at 1184.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was improper, holding that Clay Electric qualified as an “undertaker.” Specifically, the company entered into a contract with Jacksonville Electric Authority to maintain the streetlights. In entering into this contract, Clay Electric not only owed certain contractual obligations to Jacksonville Electric, it undertook a broader duty to not place others at risk while performing such a service. And Clay Electric breached that duty. As the Court explained, the company’s “failure to exercise due care in maintaining the streetlights caused the roadway to be cast in darkness, thus increasing the risk that [the truck driver] would be unable to see [the boy].” Id. at 1186-87.
As we can see from the Clay Electric case, it doesn’t matter that the injured person didn’t have a contract (verbal or otherwise) with the undertaker. As the Florida Supreme Court has put it, Tthe undertaker doctrine “applies not just to parties in privity with one another—i.e., the parties directly involved in an agreement or undertaking—but also to third parties.” Clay Elec. Coop., Inc., 873 So.2d at 1185 (emphasis added).
In short, when a person or company chooses to perform a service out in the world—whether for free or for pay—it can lead to that company owing duties to third-parties. And failing to exercise reasonable care when performing a service can give rise to liability.