negligent undertaking doctrine in California

2023(See Southern California, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 450 ; see also City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1006 , 1015–1016 [The ‘increased risk’ element of the negligent undertaking doctrine is not satisfied where the defendant merely ‘fail[ed] to eliminate a preexisting risk.’].)” (Hanouchian, supra, 51 Cal.App.5th at p. 115.) The Hanouchian court’s analysis continued: “Nor can Plaintiff prove he actually and reasonably relied upon [the university]’s safety protocols.

2023(See Southern California, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 450 ; see also City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1006 , 1015–1016 [The ‘increased risk’ element of the negligent undertaking doctrine is not satisfied where the defendant merely ‘fail[ed] to eliminate a preexisting risk.’].)” (Hanouchian, supra, 51 Cal.App.5th at p. 115.) The Hanouchian court’s analysis continued: “Nor can Plaintiff prove he actually and reasonably relied upon [the university]’s safety protocols.

2021(See Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1177 ; Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203 .) “‘“The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement.”’” (Jackson, at p. 1177.) Commonly referred to as the negligent undertaking doctrine, this aspect of the law of duty has traditionally been discussed in the context of a volunteer (a “Good

2020(See Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1177 ; Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203 .) “‘“The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement.”’” (Jackson, at p. 1177.) Commonly referred to as the negligent undertaking doctrine, this aspect of the law of duty has traditionally been discussed in the context of a volunteer (a “Good

2021In those circumstances the volunteer “will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met: either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.” (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 249 .) But, as explained by Division Eight of this court in Mukthar v. Latin American Security Service (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 284 , 289- 290, the doctrine may apply whether th

2020In those circumstances the volunteer “will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met: either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.” (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 249 .) But, as explained by Division Eight of this court in Mukthar v. Latin American Security Service (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 284 , 289- 290, the doctrine may apply whether th

2021(See Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1177 ; Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203 .) “‘“The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement.”’” (Jackson, at p. 1177.) Commonly referred to as the negligent undertaking doctrine, this aspect of the law of duty has traditionally been discussed in the context of a volunteer (a “Good

2020(See Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1177 ; Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203 .) “‘“The rule which imposes this duty is of universal application as to all persons who by contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise of care, skill and knowledge; the obligation is implied by law and need not be stated in the agreement.”’” (Jackson, at p. 1177.) Commonly referred to as the negligent undertaking doctrine, this aspect of the law of duty has traditionally been discussed in the context of a volunteer (a “Good

2018The Negligent Undertaking Theory of Liability "The general rule is that a person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation] However, one who undertakes to *735 aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or *27 if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking." ( Paz , supra , 22 Cal.4th at pp. 558-559, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 , 994 P.2d 975 .) "Thus, ... a n

2018The Negligent Undertaking Theory of Liability "The general rule is that a person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation] However, one who undertakes to *735 aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or *27 if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking." ( Paz , supra , 22 Cal.4th at pp. 558-559, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 , 994 P.2d 975 .) "Thus, ... a n

2024(Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583 , 588 . . . ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 . . . .)” (McCurry, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1175–1176.) Murphy maintains defendants owed her a duty of care to provide medical assistance in accordance with Health and Safety section 1799.106 pursuant to the “negligent undertaking doctrine.” As recently discussed in Golick v. State of California (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1143–1146 (Golick), the negligent undertaking doctrine is one of the threads of analysis that address duty

2024(Camp, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 977 ; see Golick, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 1146 [under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “ ‘the scope of any duty assumed depends upon the nature of the undertaking,’ ” quoting Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 249 ].) In Camp, there was no evidence the officer “told Camp he would take care of her, protect her, summon medical care for her despite her wishes, or help her in any other way.” (Camp, at p. 978.) In short, he owed no duty to do more than 19 he did given Camp’s assertion she was not hurt and her refusal of medical assistance.

2024(Camp, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 .) We therefore conclude, given the undisputed facts in this case, the trial court correctly ruled the paramedics did not, under the negligent undertaking doctrine, have a duty to render medical assistance to Murphy in accordance with the standard of care applicable such assistance.

2024(Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583 , 588 . . . ; Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1610 . . . .)” (McCurry, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1175–1176.) Murphy maintains defendants owed her a duty of care to provide medical assistance in accordance with Health and Safety section 1799.106 pursuant to the “negligent undertaking doctrine.” As recently discussed in Golick v. State of California (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1143–1146 (Golick), the negligent undertaking doctrine is one of the threads of analysis that address duty

2024Such a volunteer is liable if (1) his or her failure to exercise due care increases the risk of harm[,] or (2) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.” (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1136 , citing Williams, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 23 ; Golick, at p. 1145.) Thus, “ ‘ “[t]he foundational requirement of the good Samaritan rule is that in order for liability to be imposed upon the actor, he must specifically have undertaken to perform the task that he is charged with having performed negligently.” ’ ”

2024(See Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 694 , 707 [negligent undertaking doctrine is an “aspect of the law of duty”]; Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 914, 922 , fn. omitted [“the Good Samaritan rule or the negligent undertaking theory of liability . . . is applied to determine the ‘duty element’ in a negligence action where the defendant has ‘“specifically . . . undertaken to perform the task that he is charged with having performed negligently, for without the actual assumption of the undertaking there can be no correlative duty to p

2023Co., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 1217 .) To conclude, we find: 1) the trial court did not err by refusing to modify the negligent undertaking instruction because it accurately stated the law; and 2) the court did not err by refusing to give the jury an instruction that hotel guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the instruction was irrelevant and argumentive.

2023“The negligent undertaking doctrine incorporates the general rule, and exception, that one who did not create a peril ‘is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation.] However, one who undertakes to aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking.’” (Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego County (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 853, 878 .) “The foundation for con

2023“The negligent undertaking doctrine incorporates the general rule, and exception, that one who did not create a peril ‘is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation.] However, one who undertakes to aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking.’” (Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego County (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 853, 878 .) “The foundation for con

2023“The negligent undertaking doctrine incorporates the general rule, and exception, that one who did not create a peril ‘is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation.] However, one who undertakes to aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking.’” (Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego County (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 853, 878 .) “The foundation for con

2022Mann v. State of California (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 773 , 776 & 780 [state liable for officer’s negligence in leaving stranded motorist unprotected after officer undertook to investigate a dangerous situation].) In this case, plaintiffs allege that Lombardi was the first officer to respond to a call for emergency assistance, and that he attempted to restrain Wong.

2020(Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 465 .) “Where, as here, a ‘complaint alleges injuries resulting from the criminal acts of third persons . . . “the common law, reluctant to impose liability for nonfeasance, generally does not impose a duty upon a defendant to control the conduct of another [citations], or to warn of such conduct [citations], unless the defendant stands in some special relationship either to the person whose conduct needs to be controlled, or to the 8 foreseeable victim of such conduct.” ’ ” (Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 155