PERSONAL INJURY | 2026-09-30
The Negligent Undertaking Doctrine: Liability for Voluntarily Assumed Duties
Someone who voluntarily undertakes to protect another can be liable for doing it carelessly — even if they had no duty to act at all. California follows this “Good Samaritan” rule from Restatement § 324A.
The law generally does not require a person to come to another’s aid. But once someone <strong>voluntarily undertakes</strong> to render services to protect another — an inspection, a safety program, a warning system, a rescue — they must perform that undertaking with <strong>reasonable care</strong
Choosing to help — or to take on a safety role — carries responsibility.
The Core Principle
Ordinarily, there is no duty to act to protect another absent a special relationship. But when a person or entity voluntarily undertakes to render services that it should recognize as necessary for the protection of another, the law imposes a duty to perform that undertaking with reasonable care. The theory is that once a party takes on a protective role — and others may depend on it — carelessness in performing it can cause real harm, and the law holds the undertaker responsible.
Restatement § 324A: The Three Pathways
California follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, which addresses liability to third persons for the negligent performance of an undertaking. Under § 324A, one who undertakes to render services to another, which it should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person, is subject to liability to that third person for physical harm caused by its failure to exercise reasonable care, if one of three conditions is met:
- (a) Increased risk. The failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm; or
- (b) Assumed duty. The undertaker assumed a duty owed by the other to the third person; or
- (c) Reliance. The harm was suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person on the undertaking.
The California Supreme Court applied this framework in Artiglio v. Corning Inc., confirming that § 324A governs negligent undertaking claims in California.
Common Scenarios
Negligent undertaking claims frequently arise where a party takes on a safety-related role it was not otherwise required to perform, such as:
- a company that voluntarily inspects premises or equipment for safety;
- a party that undertakes a safety program or training for another’s workers;
- an entity that assumes responsibility to warn of or investigate a hazard; or
- a professional or consultant that undertakes to provide safety services.
In each case, if the undertaking is performed negligently and one of the § 324A conditions is satisfied, liability can follow.
The Increased-Risk and Reliance Requirements
Two of the pathways deserve emphasis. Under (a), the plaintiff must show the negligent performance actually increased the risk beyond what existed had the undertaking never occurred — merely failing to reduce a pre-existing risk may not suffice. Under (c), the plaintiff must show actual reliance on the undertaking — that the other party or the injured person relied on the undertaker to perform, and that reliance led to the harm (for example, foregoing other precautions because someone else was handling safety). These requirements focus liability on undertakings that genuinely affected the situation.
Why It Matters
The negligent undertaking doctrine can reach parties who might otherwise escape liability by arguing they had no duty. Once a party voluntarily assumes a protective role — and increases risk, assumes another’s duty, or induces reliance — it can be held responsible for performing that role carelessly. For injured people, identifying who undertook safety responsibilities (and how they failed) can open an important avenue of recovery beyond the obvious defendants.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the negligent undertaking doctrine?
The rule that one who voluntarily undertakes to render services necessary for another’s protection must do so with reasonable care, and can be liable for negligent performance.
Isn’t there usually no duty to act?
Correct — but voluntarily undertaking a protective role creates a duty to perform it carefully.
What does Restatement § 324A require?
Liability to a third person if the negligent undertaking increased the risk, assumed another’s duty, or caused harm through reliance.
What California case applies it?
Artiglio v. Corning Inc., confirming § 324A governs negligent undertaking in California.
What is the increased-risk pathway?
That the negligent performance actually increased the risk of harm beyond what existed without the undertaking.
What is the reliance pathway?
That the injured person or another relied on the undertaking, and that reliance led to the harm.
Related Personal Injury Guides
Talk to a California Personal Injury Attorney
If a party that took on a safety role performed it carelessly and you were hurt, the negligent undertaking doctrine may apply. Trembach Law Firm can evaluate your claim. Call (818) 514-7680.
Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.
Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301