(concurring).
I write separately because I would conclude that the third type of special relationship, as described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965), should be addressed. The district court ruled that this type of special relationship could not be shown and that ruling might become material in the trial. Further, I would conclude that the third type of special relationship has been shown under the facts presented.
Under Restatement § 324A and our decision in Walsh v. Pagra Air Taxi, Inc., the third type of special relationship would exist if it is shown that Johnson (1) undertook, whether gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to Bjerke’s parents (2) which Johnson should have recognized as being necessary for Bjerke’s protection. See 282 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn.1979).
As to the first element, I would conclude as a matter of law that, at least as early as the summer of 1998, Johnson gratuitously undertook to provide a large portion of the services that Bjerke’s parents were otherwise obligated to provide to Bjerke. Because Bjerke was an unemancipated minor at the time Johnson brought her into her home, the provision of Bjerke’s basic necessities was the responsibility of Bjerke’s parents. By providing Bjerke with such necessities, Johnson effectively rendered a service to Bjerke’s parents, similar in kind to those provided by a baby-sitter, though Johnson’s services were much greater in scope. Given that even a baby-sitter is expected to provide some basic services to *672the child in her care — food, supervision, and protection from harm — a homeowner who brings a minor child to live in her household long-term would naturally be expected, at very least, to provide such basic services as well.
Johnson argues that an “undertaking” exists only when there is an explicit agreement between the person providing the service and the individual to whom that service is provided. She argues that no explicit agreement was ever reached between herself and Bjerke’s parents for Johnson to provide services to Bjerke on behalf of Bjerke’s parents. Such an interpretation of Restatement § 324A has been rejected in our prior cases, has not been adopted in the decisions of any other jurisdiction, and is not supported by public policy considerations.
Of course, the Restatement is a generalized summary of American common law and not a pronouncement of our legislature. Thus, we are not bound by rules of statutory construction and may use the Restatement for guidance in informing our own view of the common law in Minnesota. But even if one were to read section 324A of the Restatement like a statute and focus on the intended meaning of the word “undertaking,” that term is not as limited as Johnson suggests. Dictionary definitions suggest two alternatives, defining “undertake” as either “to take upon oneself, as a task, performance, etc.; attempt” or “to promise, agree, or obligate oneself.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 2064 (2d ed. 1987). In other words, although a promise may be sufficient to establish an undertaking, it is not necessary for an undertaking to occur. In common usage, one can be said to have undertaken a task at the moment she begins that task, regardless of whether a promise to begin that task might also be involved.
This distinction actually played a determinative role in our decision on special relationships in Erickson v. Curtis Inv. Co., 447 N.W.2d 165 (Minn.1989). In that case, the defendant security company argued that it had no duty, under Restatement § 324A, to protect the plaintiff from harm in a parking garage because the plaintiff was not a customer of the hotel with which the defendant had contracted, but only a patron of the parking garage that the defendant patrolled pursuant to a contract with the hotel. Id. at 170. We rejected the defendant’s argument and held that the security company’s actions constituted an undertaking to perform the duty of the parking garage operator to protect its customers. Id. If a contract or other explicit agreement were necessary to establish a special relationship, the result reached in Erickson would not have been possible, given the lack of any explicit agreement between the security company and the parking garage operator.
A review of the case law under Restatement § 324A, and the similar provisions of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965), fails to reveal a single case that has made the existence of an explicit promise necessary in order to establish an undertaking under either section. Of course, a number of those cases present the situation in which some form of contract or agreement to act for the benefit of another was present. We found the existence of such a contract when we imposed a duty on the defendants in Pagra, for instance. See 282 N.W.2d at 570 (imposing liability under Restatement § 324A because, “[b]y the terms of its operating agreement with the city, Pagra agreed to undertake the fire-protection duty assumed by the city”).
Naturally, a contract will provide compelling evidence that one party has undertaken some kind of responsibility for another. But that does not mean that a *673contract or express agreement is necessary when the undertaking has been shown by the party’s conduct. See, e.g., Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 69, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955) (“[O]nee [the Coast Guard] exercised its discretion to [provide a lighthouse service] and engendered reliance on the guidance afforded by the light, it was obligated to use due care to make certain that the light was kept in good working order.”); Erickson, 447 N.W.2d at 170 (rejecting defendant’s argument that it could not be held liable because plaintiff was not customer of party with whom defendant had contracted); Williams v. State, 34 Cal.3d 18, 192 Cal.Rptr. 233, 664 P.2d 137, 141 (1983) (concluding that “a promise and reliance thereon are [not] indispensable elements of a special relationship”); Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mich. 685, 303 N.W.2d 702, 718-19, n. 49 (1981) (determining that an undertaking may arise either from defendant’s explicit promise or from defendant’s representations).1
Further, to adopt Johnson’s interpretation would effectively blur the distinction between contract and tort law. If an express promise were required on behalf of both parties every time a duty was to be imposed, it would be all but impossible to show a duty to protect under section 324A without proving the existence of a contract. As the Michigan Supreme Court has observed, however, there are important distinctions between the interests served by contract law and tort law, respectively:
Although in analyzing what constitutes an “undertaking” under § 324A, we use terms with contract law overtones, such as “agreed” or “intended to benefit another,” it should be emphasized that we are determining when an “undertaking” will give rise to tort liability, not contractual liability. We deal with the question of when a party’s conduct furnishes a proper basis for the law to impose tort liability, not with the question of when a party’s conduct can properly be considered as creating a contract implied in fact.
In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract a court is concerned primarily with determining the expectations of the parties and whether those expectations were reasonable. In imposing tort liability, however, a court is only concerned with whether it is appropriate public policy to impose liability for particular conduct; it does not usually consider whether the parties involved believed liability to exist. * * *
Although considerations appropriate in a contractual context may also be relevant in the tort context, differences in the relevant public policies, extent of liability, the nature of the relationships and the expectations of the persons involved, suggest that the question of what conduct amounts to an undertaking for the negligent performance of which the law will impose tort liability should not be confined by principles of contract law.
Allendale, 303 N.W.2d at 711 n. 24.
This general refusal to restrict tort liability by contractual notions is further illustrated by well-known tort principles— no agreement is required before an individual will be held liable for attempting and negligently failing to provide assistance to another, as the actual conduct of the actor is all that is relevant. See, e.g., Slater v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 209 F. 480, 483 (M.D.Tenn.1911) (finding railroad liable in negligence when it “assume[d] control of the injured person over his protest and *674with knowledge of the imminent peril due to his condition”); Farwell v. Keaton, 396 Mich. 281, 240 N.W.2d 217, 220 (1976) (“Without regard to whether there is a general duty to aid a person in distress, there is a clearly recognized legal duty of every person to avoid any affirmative acts which may make a situation worse.”); Dunham v. Village of Canisteo, 303 N.Y. 498, 104 N.E.2d 872, 875 (1952) (defendants, “having assumed charge of the deceased * * * were under an obligation to exercise ordinary care”). As Judge Benjamin Cardozo once stated, “It is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.” Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236, 135 N.E. 275, 276 (1922).
Also, it would not serve public policy to make the responsibility of an adult for the welfare of a child turn solely upon the existence of an agreement between that child’s caregiver and her parents. Because the duty to protect would then only exist in the specific circumstances covered by the parties’ agreement, any circumstances beyond the scope of the agreement would presumably remain within the general duties of the parents, even though they were not in a position to perform those duties. As a result, there would be a “dead zone” in which the custodian, who was in the best position to care for the child, would have no duty to do so, while the parents, who were too distant to actually care for the day-to-day needs of the child, would retain the duty to do so.
Moreover, the ultimate dispute here is not between Johnson and Bjerke’s parents, but between Johnson and Bjerke. To make the parties’ agreement determinative would be to ignore the expectations of the child herself and make the imposition of a duty turn on the wishes of potentially irresponsible parents and their chosen caregivers. It is Bjerke who has brought this action and it is her relationship to Johnson that is determinative.
Finally, it should be noted that the duties of the caretaker and the parents need not be mutually exclusive, but can be shared and overlap.2 As legal custodians and guardians, the parents have duties that remain their ultimate responsibility, even if those duties are temporarily shared with or delegated to another. That is not to say, however, that a caregiver cannot become responsible for some parental duties by undertaking to perform them, even though the parents retain concurrent responsibility. For example, it is settled law that parents have a duty to protect their children, and that common carriers have a duty to protect their patrons. See Delgado v. Lohmar, 289 N.W.2d 479, 483-84 (Minn.1979). When a parent and her child board a cruise liner, though, few would say that either the duty of the parent or that of the operator of the ship has been negated.
If Johnson undertook to render a service to Bjerke’s parents when she brought Bjerke into her home for the summer of 1998, the question becomes whether (1) her failure to act increased the risk of harm; (2) she undertook a duty owed to Bjerke by her parents; or (3) the harm to Bjerke was suffered because Bjerke’s parents relied on Johnson’s performance of the undertaking. See Pagra, 282 N.W.2d at 571. As to the second prong, I would conclude that Johnson undertook a number of the duties normally owed by parents to their children. Johnson undertook to provide Bjerke with room and board, as *675well as a level of guidance that she felt was lacking in Bjerke’s own home. It is hard to dispute that these are all things which any parent has a duty to provide to her child. In the alternative, under the third prong, I would also conclude that the harm was suffered in some part because Bjerke’s parents relied upon Johnson to look after their daughter. Bjerke’s mother herself stated that she relied on Johnson as a responsible adult to care for Bjerke during her stays at Island Farm, and nothing in the record would indicate that Bjerke’s parents would have allowed her to remain at Island Farm if they believed that Johnson was not protecting their daughter from sexual abuse.
Accordingly, I would conclude as a matter of law that the elements necessary to show the existence of a special relationship under Restatement § 324A have been met by Johnson’s provision of services to Bjerke’s parents, at least as early as the summer of 1998.
. The proposed final draft of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm, § 43 cmt. h (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005), specifies that, "The duty imposed by this section is independent of any contractual obligations.”
. The proposed final draft, of Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm, § 43 cmt. g, illus. 2 (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005), indicates that, "The actor who engages in an undertaking need not completely displace the person originally owing the duty."