Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
A risk of harm that a reasonable person would anticipate from given conduct or circumstances. The concept limits the scope of duty in negligence to those plaintiffs situated within the zone of danger created by the defendant's actions.
2
A risk of harm that a reasonable person would anticipate from given conduct or circumstances. Where negligent conduct creates or increases such a risk, an intervening force that realizes the risk is not a superseding cause.
Sense 1
1
Sense 1
A risk of harm that a reasonable person would anticipate from given conduct or circumstances. The concept limits the scope of duty in negligence to those plaintiffs situated within the zone of danger created by the defendant's actions.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Examples
Sense 2
2
Sense 2
A risk of harm that a reasonable person would anticipate from given conduct or circumstances. Where negligent conduct creates or increases such a risk, an intervening force that realizes the risk is not a superseding cause.
Sources & Authorities· 1 source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
5
Zone of Danger Injury
Felicity French stood on the platform when a conductor pushed a passenger carrying a package. The package fell and exploded, toppling scales that struck Felicity. Because the conductor's conduct created no foreseeable risk of harm to someone in Felicity's position, the railroad owed her no duty of care.
Airbag Design Choice
Fairview Manufacturing installed manual seat belts rather than airbags in its vehicles. A driver suffered enhanced injuries in a collision that airbags would have mitigated. The manufacturer had to account for the foreseeable risk of frontal impacts when selecting its restraint system.
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.529 U.S. 861, 874–75 (2000)
Association Maintenance Duty
Foxfire Biotech's homeowners association decided against installing additional lighting in common areas. A resident was assaulted in a dimly lit walkway. The association owed a duty to address the foreseeable risk of criminal attacks on owners using the property.
Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Association980 P.2d 940, 950 (Cal. 1999)
Auditor Third-Party Harm
Fisher Foods hired an accounting firm to audit its statements. Investors relied on the audit and suffered losses when the statements proved false. The firm owed no duty to the investors because harm to them was not a foreseeable risk within the scope of the engagement.
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.834 P.2d 745 (Cal. 1992)
Warranty Versus Strict Liability
Fusion Power sold a vehicle whose design created a foreseeable risk of rollover. A buyer was injured when the vehicle rolled over during ordinary use. The buyer could pursue both implied-warranty and strict-liability claims because the same foreseeable risk supported both theories.
Denny v. Ford Motor Co.87 N.Y.2d 248, 639 N.Y.S.2d 250, 662 N.E.2d 730, 736 (1995)
Frequently Asked2
How does foreseeable risk define the scope of duty in negligence?+
A defendant owes a duty only to plaintiffs within the zone of foreseeable risk created by the defendant's conduct. If injury to a person in the plaintiff's position was not reasonably anticipatable at the time of the act, no duty arises even if harm occurs.
Supporting sources
Does foreseeable risk affect products-liability design claims?+
A product is defective in design when foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced by a reasonable alternative design. Manufacturers must therefore account for risks such as driver inattention or ordinary misuse when developing safety features.
Supporting sources
1
Intervening Medical Negligence
Forrest Falconer negligently wounded Fabian Flynn in a fight. Fabian received negligent hospital treatment that worsened his injuries. The negligent medical care remained within the foreseeable risk created by Forrest's initial conduct, so it did not relieve Forrest of liability.
Frequently Asked1
When does an intervening force remain within the scope of foreseeable risk?+
An intervening force does not break the chain of causation when the original negligent conduct created or increased the foreseeable risk of harm and was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Negligent medical treatment after an initial wound is typically treated as foreseeable.
…may be defective because it is improperly made, because its design is defective or because the manufacturer's warnings against foreseeable risks in using it are inadequate. The members of the Court agree that strict products liability and implied warranty are similar in the sense that both causes of action require that, before…
TortsIntentional torts · Harms to the person and property interests (assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental distress, trespass to land and chattels, conversion)UBEIntermediate