Also known as: foreseeable · foreseeable harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The quality of being reasonably anticipatable. Foreseeability serves as a limit on liability by requiring that harm or loss be within the range of risks a reasonable person would have recognized when acting.
Felicia Fuentes left a ladder leaning against an open second-story window while she ran an errand. A passerby climbed the ladder, entered the home, and stole valuables. The homeowner sued Fuentes for negligence. The court held that the theft was a foreseeable action of a third person, so Fuentes's failure to secure the premises created an unreasonable risk of that harm.
Franklin Foundry sold a defective valve to a plumbing contractor without any contractual relationship to Frank Fisher, a pedestrian. The valve failed and sprayed scalding water onto Fisher. Fisher sued the foundry in negligence. Because Fisher was a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of risk created by the defective product, the absence of privity did not bar recovery.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Finn Fletcher fled from police after committing a traffic misdemeanor. During the chase he struck and killed a pedestrian. Prosecutors charged manslaughter under the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule. The court required proof that the death was a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful flight before imposing liability.
Frontier Capital left unsecured metal panels on a rooftop. An extraordinary windstorm carried the panels onto a distant highway, injuring a driver. The driver sued in negligence. Because the windstorm produced a different category of highway harm than the rooftop risk the company had created, the intervention was a superseding cause despite the original foreseeability of falling objects.
Fatima Flores negligently stored chemicals near a loading dock. An explosion occurred and the shock wave shattered windows in a building two blocks away, injuring Fabian Flynn who was inside. Flynn sued Flores. Because Flynn was not within the zone of foreseeable risk at the time of the negligent storage, Flores owed him no duty of care.
Felipe Figueroa committed arson, a felony not qualifying for felony murder. While fleeing the scene he struck and killed a bystander. The state charged involuntary manslaughter. The court imposed liability because the death was a foreseeable consequence of the felony.
Foreseeability requires that the harm be within the range of risks a reasonable person would have recognized. An extraordinary intervening force that produces a different category of harm breaks the chain of liability even if the original conduct was negligent.
Under the Cardozo view a defendant owes a duty only to plaintiffs within the zone of reasonably foreseeable risk created by the negligent act. A plaintiff outside that zone receives no duty even if injury occurs.
Most courts require that the death be a foreseeable or natural result of the misdemeanor unless the offense is malum in se. If the misdemeanor is merely malum prohibitum, lack of foreseeability defeats manslaughter liability.
…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…