One Who Undertakes to Act Is Under An Implied Legal Obligation or Duty to Act With Reasonable Care

In Union Park Memorial Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So. 2d 64, 66- 67 (Fla. 1996), the court stated: It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care. See: Slemp v. City of North Miami, 545 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1989) (holding that even if city had no general duty to protect property owners from flooding due to natural causes, once city has undertaken to provide such protection, it assumes the responsibility to do so with reasonable care); Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 667, 140 So. 893, 896 (1932) (holding that one who undertakes to act is under an implied legal duty to act with reasonable care to ensure that the person or property of others will not be injured as a result of the undertaking); Kowkabany v. Home Depot, Inc., 606 So. 2d 716, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that by undertaking to safely load landscaping timbers into vehicle, defendant owed duty of reasonable care to bicyclist who was struck by timbers protruding from vehicle window); Garrison Retirement Home v. Hancock, 484 So. 2d 1257, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that retirement home that assumed and undertook care and supervision of retirement home resident owed duty to third party to exercise reasonable care in supervision of resident's activities). As the Court recognized over sixty years ago in Banfield v. Addington, "in every situation where a man undertakes to act, . . . he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured." Id.; See also Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 1995)("A duty is thus established when the acts of a defendant in a particular case create a foreseeable zone of risk.").