or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1977). As stated by Am. Jur.2d Negligence § 208, at 255 (1989), “Where one undertakes an act which he has no duty to perform and another reasonably relies upon that undertaking, the act must generally be performed with ordinary or reasonable care.” We relied on this principle in establishing a duty in DCR Inc. v. Peak Alarm Co., 663 P.2d 433, 436 (Utah 1983), and cited it in dictum in Weber v. Springville City, 725 P.2d 1360, 1364 (Utah 1986). We have held that a governmental entity has no general duty to fence in waterways. See Brinkerhoff v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 2d 214, 371 P.2d 211 (Utah 1962). We have not yet decided, and decline to do s 390 N.Y.S.2d 341 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Nelson’s status as a minor is also relevant
holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding prima facie case against city where child crawled through hole in playground fence and suffered injury on train tracks holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1