There are many times the old adage, “No good deed goes unpunished,” rings true. At one point in time, or more likely many points in time, we have all felt this why. We undertook a good deed only to feel unappreciated or the good deed backfires.
In Florida, there is a legal doctrine known as the undertaker’s doctrine. Just the name of the doctrine has a morbid undertone, right? This doctrine applies in negligence scenarios because it establishes a duty that the undertaker owes to another, even if he undertook a service because he is a swell guy. This undertaker’s doctrine has been described as follows:
Whenever one undertakes to provide a service to others, whether one does so gratuitously or by contract, the individual who undertakes to provide the service — i.e., the ‘undertaker’ — thereby assumes a duty to act carefully and to not put others at an undue risk of harm. The undertaker is subject to liability if: (a) he or she fails to exercise reasonable care, which results in increased harm to the beneficiary; or (b) the beneficiary relies upon the undertaker and is harmed as a result.
Muchnick v. Goihman, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D986b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
An example of the application of the undertaker’s doctrine can be found in Muchnick where the appellate court held former tenants could assert a negligence claim against their real estate rental agent. In this case, a real estate agent knew a family looking to rent another high-end apartment because they lived in the same building. He worked for a real estate brokerage firm and he approached the family about renting another unit in the same building. During the walk through of that unit, there were items the family wanted repaired and the agent assured the family they would be addressed prior to the family moving in. The family rented the apartment and the brokerage firm was listed as the broker for the transaction.
When the family moved into the unit, the items they wanted repaired were not. And, to make matters worse, the family discovered a serious water intrusion and damage problem that resulted in mold getting into to the apartment’s ventilation system. The family communicated predominantly with the real estate agent regarding the issues as the owner of the unit lived abroad and the agent lived in the building. During a deposition, the father claimed that the agent told him that since he lived in the same building he would be the go-to-guy to address any issues with the apartment and undertake repairs. The issues did not get resolved which impacted the children’s health and they were forced to terminate the lease early and relocate.
Initially, the real estate agent argued that his firm, and not him personally, should have been sued, because he was acting in the scope of his employment as a real estate agent in dealing with the family. The appellate court rejected this argument stating:
[J]ust because Goihman [agent] was acting in the scope of his employment when he rented the apartment, promised to fix it, and managed the repairs, doesn’t mean that he was shielded from personal liability under all circumstances. [O]fficers or agents of corporations may be individually liable in tort if they commit or participate in a tort, even if their acts are within the course and scope of their employment. All that needs to be alleged is that the agent or officer personally participated in the tort, even if the complained of action was because of and entirely within the scope of his or her employment.
Muchnick, supra (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Next, the real estate agent argued that since he did not own the apartment unit, he did not owe a duty to the family that was renting the unit to fix and manage the repairs. The appellate court rejected this argument too…because of the undertaker’s doctrine. Once the real estate agent volunteered, even if gratuitously, to fix the problems and manage the repairs, he assumed a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing those services.
It is great to be a swell guy. But, when you agree to undertake a service, even if that service is nothing but a good deed you are performing, you have a duty to use reasonable care in performing that service to prevent harm to the beneficiary of that service.
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.