ruling officers had a duty under the undertaker doctrine because, in responding to a 911 call involving a non-responsive person, the officers increased the risk of harm by affirmatively undertaking to provide aid but then repeatedly made assurances to third parties that emergency help was not immediately required
How later courts described this case
- ruling officers had a duty under the undertaker doctrine because, in responding to a 911 call involving a non-responsive person, the officers increased the risk of harm by affirmatively undertaking to provide aid but then repeatedly made assurances to third parties that emergency help was not immediately required
- concluding undertaker’s doctrine was satisfied “because the deputies, in a position of authority, increased the risk of harm that the decedent faced by 2 inducing third parties—who would have otherwise rendered further aid . . . —to forebear from doing so”
- recognizing four bases for imposing a duty: “(1) legislative enactments or administration regulations; (2) judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations; (3) other judicial precedent; and (4) a duty arising from the general facts of the case”
- holding that the complaint adequately pleaded a claim of negligent undertaking because it alleged that the defendants “affirmatively and specifically undertook to provide aid” upon which others relied
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
POLSTON, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with Justice Wells that we should discharge jurisdiction because there is not an express and direct conflict pursuant to article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.