Also known as: reasonably foreseeable · reasonable foreseeable · foreseeability
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A limiting doctrine that confines tort or contract liability to those consequences that a reasonable person would have anticipated from the defendant's conduct or the breach at the relevant time.
Rosa Ruiz operated a scale at a busy train station. She negligently allowed an overloaded package to fall onto the tracks. The package exploded and injured Rowan Russell, who stood several feet away on the platform. Rowan sued Rosa for negligence. Because Rowan stood outside the zone of reasonably foreseeable risk created by Rosa's conduct, Rosa owed him no duty of care.
Renee Rogers published a false statement about Rising Sun Electronics' product quality. The circumstances made it reasonably foreseeable that third-party buyers would rely on the statement when deciding whether to purchase from the company. The buyers did rely and suffered pecuniary loss. The jury could therefore find the publication element satisfied under the injurious falsehood standard.
Radiant Technologies sold a component part to a wholesaler in State X. A consumer later purchased the finished product in State Y and was injured there. Radiant had no other contacts with State Y. Mere foreseeability that the product might reach State Y did not establish purposeful availment, so the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Radiant.
Rhapsody Entertainment published a statement disparaging Rosalind Reed's business interests. The jury was asked to decide whether the circumstances made third-party reliance on the publication reasonably foreseeable. Evidence showed the statement circulated in the industry where such reliance was common. The jury could therefore find the element satisfied.
Riley Rivera bought a sport utility vehicle marketed for both off-road and on-road driving. While driving on a paved highway the vehicle rolled over. Riley sued the manufacturer for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court held that an on-road rollover was a reasonably foreseeable use even if the vehicle was designed primarily for off-road conditions.
Nancy Denny was severely injured when the Ford Bronco II that she was driving rolled over on June 9, 1986. The rollover occurred after Denny slammed on her brakes to avoid a deer that had walked directly into the vehicle's path. The Bronco II was a downsized small utility vehicle designed for off-road use on unpaved and rugged terrain. Ford marketed the vehicle as suitable for commuting, suburban and city driving, and family use in snow and ice. Denny and her spouse sued Ford Motor Co. asserting claims for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under UCC 2-314(2)(c) and 2-318. The case went to trial in the District Court for the Northern District of New York in October of 1992. Plaintiffs introduced evidence that the Bronco II had a high center of gravity, narrow track width and short wheel base that made it prone to rollover on paved roads. Ford introduced evidence that those design features were necessary to the vehicle's off-road capabilities and that it had not been designed primarily as a passenger car. The jury found that the Bronco II was not defective under the strict products liability claim but that Ford had breached the implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach proximately caused Nancy Denny's injuries. Following apportionment the plaintiff was awarded judgment in the amount of $1.2 million. Ford moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) arguing that the verdicts were irreconcilable. The trial court rejected the motion. On appeal the Second Circuit certified three questions of New York law to this Court.
View caseReliance Insurance participated in a reinsurance agreement that affected premiums in multiple states. The agreement's effects on California policyholders were reasonably foreseeable to the participants. The court therefore treated the conduct as subject to California antitrust law despite the agreement's out-of-state formation.
In the late 1970s, ISO, an association of approximately 1,400 domestic property and casualty insurers that serves as the almost exclusive source of support services for CGL insurance in the United States, began revising its 1973 standard CGL policy form. The 1973 form provided occurrence-based coverage for sudden and accidental pollution and did not cap defense costs. Primary insurers including Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and CIGNA Corporation sought four changes: a shift to claims-made coverage with a retroactive date, elimination of pollution coverage, and a legal defense cost cap. After ISO proposed 1984 forms that omitted some of these changes, Hartford persuaded General Reinsurance Corporation, the largest American reinsurer, to procure the modifications or derail the program. The Reinsurance Association of America agreed to boycott the 1984 forms unless the changes were added, and domestic and London reinsurers informed ISO they would withhold reinsurance until the forms were altered. ISO then withdrew the 1984 forms and adopted 1986 forms containing a retroactive date and pollution exclusion; it later withdrew support services for the 1973 form. Separate agreements among London reinsurers required primary insurers to switch to claims-made policies and excluded pollution coverage from reinsurance contracts covering North American risks. Nineteen states and many private plaintiffs filed 36 complaints alleging that these actions violated section 1 of the Sherman Act. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California. The District Court granted motions to dismiss in 1989, holding the conduct fell within McCarran-Ferguson immunity and applying international comity to the foreign defendants. The Ninth Circuit reversed in 1991. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1992.
View caseA defendant owes a duty only to plaintiffs within the range of reasonably foreseeable risk created by the negligent conduct. If injury to a person in the plaintiff's position was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the act, no duty exists even if harm occurs.
Supporting sources
No. The mere possibility that a product sold elsewhere might enter the forum is insufficient. The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum's market or protections.
Supporting sources
A party may recover losses that the breaching party had reason to foresee as a probable result of the breach at the time of contracting. Disclosure of special circumstances during negotiations can satisfy the test.
Supporting sources
…handicapped." The Act also provides that, in making this determination, "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment." It also permits a physician, without the concurrence of others, to terminate a pregnancy where he is of the good-faith opinion that the abortion "is immediately necessary to…