Also known as: foreseeability requirements · foreseeability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrinal constraint that limits recovery, liability, or jurisdiction to harms, results, or contacts that a reasonable person would have anticipated at the time of the relevant conduct or agreement.
Frontier Capital manufactures components in State X and sells them to distributors there. A consumer buys one unit and drives it to State Y, where it causes injury. Frontier Capital has no offices, agents, or marketing efforts in State Y. The court refuses to exercise personal jurisdiction because the company's only link is the consumer's unilateral movement of the product.
Eastern Air Lines contracts with Gulf Oil for jet fuel at a fixed price. Gulf Oil breaches by failing to deliver on time during a shortage. Eastern Air Lines loses profits on canceled flights that Gulf Oil knew were dependent on the fuel supply. The court awards consequential damages because the lost profits were a foreseeable result of the breach at the time of contracting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Spur Industries operates a cattle feedlot in a rural area. Del E. Webb later purchases nearby land and builds a large residential community. Homeowners complain of odors and flies. The court orders Spur to relocate but requires Webb to pay part of the cost because the developer could have foreseen the nuisance when choosing the site.
Consolidated Rail Corp. negligently causes a chemical spill near an airport. People Express Airlines must suspend operations for several days. The airline sues for economic losses. The court allows recovery because the airline's operations were within the zone of foreseeable harm created by the spill.
Aluminum Company of America sells aluminum to Essex Group under a long-term contract with a price adjustment formula. Unexpected inflation drives production costs far higher than the formula anticipated. Essex Group refuses to pay the increased price. The court enforces an equitable adjustment because the parties could not have foreseen the scale of inflation at contracting.
Johns-Mansville Products Corp. manufactures asbestos products without warning labels. Workers later develop diseases from exposure. Beshada sues for failure to warn. The court holds the manufacturer liable even though the precise diseases were not known at the time of sale because the general risk of harm from asbestos was foreseeable.
Disclosure of specific needs during negotiations counts as notice at the time of contracting. The breaching party then has reason to know the loss is a probable result of breach. Courts treat this knowledge as satisfying foreseeability even without quantified details of the potential loss.
Yes. For result crimes based on negligence or recklessness the actual harm must fall within the risk the defendant should have recognized or consciously disregarded. An outcome that is qualitatively different or far more serious than the anticipated harm defeats the result element.
No. The Supreme Court has held that the mere possibility a product will enter the forum through a consumer's actions is insufficient. The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum's market or protections.
Foreseeability determines whether a category of loss may be recovered while certainty governs the amount that can be proven. A loss may be foreseeable yet still unrecoverable if the plaintiff cannot establish its amount with reasonable certainty.
…a reasonable person would have been able to “foresee the offensive nature of the statements.” This ruling was erroneous. The “foreseeability” of a statement’s offensiveness does not deprive it of First Amendment protection. The fact that an audience may react with offense to a statement does not strip the statement of First…