Opinion ID: 1363963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Common law duty of care

Text: The second theory of recovery in this case was that of a breach of a common law duty of care. Even if defendants had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by supervising the execution of the codicil, they may still have assumed the obligation to see that the will was witnessed as required by law, Mickel, supra, 147 Cal.App.2d at 720, 305 P.2d at 995, that is, by expressly or impliedly agreeing to consult an attorney at law for advice on how the codicil should be attested. The jury upon retrial, upon sufficient evidence, would have to decide whether defendants assumed such an obligation or, conversely, merely agreed to act as attesting witnesses. One who engages in affirmative conduct [such as agreeing to consult an attorney for advice on how a codicil should be attested], and thereafter realizes or should realize that such conduct has created an unreasonable risk of harm to another [if such advice is not timely obtained], is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the threatened harm [by obtaining timely advice]. Syl. pt. 2, Robertson v. LeMaster, ___ W.Va. ___, 301 S.E.2d 563 (1983).