Also known as: foreseeable plaintiff
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A class of persons to whom a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care in negligence. The class consists of those individuals a reasonable person would anticipate might suffer harm from the defendant's conduct at the time the conduct occurs. Membership in the class turns on whether the plaintiff stands within the zone of foreseeable risk created by the defendant's act or omission.
MedEquip sold an infusion pump to City Hospital. Farid Farahani sat beside a friend's bed while the pump operated. The pump's casing shattered from a design defect and injured Farid. Farid sued MedEquip for negligent design. Because Farid was a visitor in the hospital room where the pump was used, he fell within the class of persons MedEquip should have anticipated might be harmed.
Apex Builders left an unbarricaded trench on a city sidewalk. Francesca Fowler, a bicycle courier, rode through the area at night and fell into the trench. Francesca sued Apex for negligence. Because sidewalk users were the very persons Apex should have anticipated would encounter the open trench, Francesca stood inside the zone of foreseeable risk.
Consolidated Rail Corp. negligently caused a chemical spill near an airport. Fumiko Fujimoto's airline suffered purely economic losses when flights were canceled. Fumiko sued the railroad. Because the airline's operations were particularly foreseeable to the railroad given the spill's location, Fumiko qualified as a foreseeable plaintiff entitled to recover.
On July 22, 1981, a fire began in the Port Newark freight yard of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation when ethylene oxide manufactured by defendant BASF Wyandotte Company escaped from a tank car owned by defendant Union Tank Car Company and leased to BASF. The tank car was punctured during a coupling operation with another rail car and ignited. The municipal authorities evacuated the area within a one-mile radius surrounding the fire, which included the North Terminal building of Newark International Airport where plaintiff People Express Airlines’ business operations are based. People Express employees were prohibited from using the North Terminal for twelve hours, although the feared explosion never occurred. The plaintiff contends that it suffered business-interruption losses as a result of the evacuation. These losses consisted of cancelled scheduled flights and lost reservations because employees were unable to answer the telephones to accept bookings. Fixed operating expenses allocable to the evacuation period were incurred and paid despite the offices being closed. No physical damage to airline property and no personal injury occurred. According to the original complaint, each defendant acted negligently and these acts proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. An amended complaint alleged additional counts of nuisance and strict liability. Conrail moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that absent property damage or personal injury economic loss was not recoverable in tort. The trial court also granted summary judgment motions by BASF and Union Car on the same reasoning. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court. This Court granted defendant Union Car’s petition for certification, in which Conrail and BASF joined. Plaintiff asserted at oral argument that at least some of the defendants were aware from prior experiences that ethylene oxide is a highly volatile substance. Further, emergency response plans in case of an accident had been prepared. When the fire occurred that gave rise to this lawsuit, some of the defendants’ consultants helped determine how much of the surrounding area to evacuate.
View caseYes. A manufacturer that places a product into commerce owes a duty of reasonable care to any person foreseeably exposed to danger if the product is negligently made. Bystanders who are within the class of persons a reasonable manufacturer would anticipate might be harmed qualify as foreseeable plaintiffs.
Supporting sources
The defendant owes no duty to that plaintiff. Under the majority view, duty exists only to those persons a reasonable actor would foresee might be injured at the time of the negligent act. An unforeseeable plaintiff cannot recover even if actual injury occurs.
Supporting sources
Recovery is possible when the plaintiff is a particularly foreseeable victim. Courts have allowed recovery for economic harm when the defendant could reasonably anticipate that the specific plaintiff would rely on the quality of the defendant's work or services.
Supporting sources
…expressly resting the decision on such considerations as a special relationship or foreknowledge of a particular class of plaintiffs. See J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. S.S. Egero , 453 F. 2d 1202 (5th Cir.1972) (defendant who negligently interfered with construction contract was liable for liquidated damages paid to…