defendant will incur liability; a plaintiff must still prove the other elements of negligence (breach of the duty, causation, and damages). Id. at 143 ¶ 9, 150 P.3d at 230. Here, recognizing that law enforcement officers have a duty of care when they undertake to notify next of kin of the death of a family member comports with our common law, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, and also the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 47(b). It is also good public policy. ¶ 30 We have not restricted the concept of duty to circumstances recognized in the Restatement. Instead, we have looked to whether the defendant, by virtue of his undertaking, has placed himself in a unique position to prevent harm to the plaintiff. See Stanley v. McCarver, 208 Ariz. 219, 223 ¶¶ 14-15, 92 P.3d 849, 853 (2004) (<HOLDING>). But even § 323, at least as interpreted by
recognizing a public policy against discrimination but not providing for an independent cause of action holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy recognizing cases where courts have considered the restatement approach as persuasive but declined to clearly articulate a rule adopting the restatement approach regarding restatement third of property mortgages  76 1997 recognizing that some police records must remain secret and free from public inspection as a matter of public policy holding that duty existed as a matter of public policy independent of the restatement