to exercise prudence in selecting investments at the outset. The Bogert treatise states that “[t]he trustee cannot assume that if investments are legal and proper for retention at the beginning of the trust, or when purchased, they will remain so indefinitely.” A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 684, pp. 145-146 (3d ed. 2009) (Bogert 3d). Rather, the trustee must “systematic[ally] conside[r] all the investments of the trust at regular intervals” to ensure that they are appropriate. Bogert 3d § 684, at 147-148; see also In re Stark’s Estate, 15 N.Y.S. 729, 731 (Surr.Ct.1891) (stating that a trustee must “exercis[e] a reasonable degree of diligence in looking after the security after the investment had been made”); Johns v. Herbert, 2 App.D.C. 485, 499 (1894) (<HOLDING>). The Restatement (Third) of Trusts states the
recognizing implied obligation to use reasonable diligence holding trustee liable for failure to discharge his duty to watch the investment with reasonable care and diligence recognizing that the members of the board of trustees are fiduciaries and therefore have a duty to protect the fund and the interests of all beneficiaries thereof which duty must be exercised with due care diligence and skill in administering the trust holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise