Also known as: foreseeability rules · foreseeability · rule of foreseeability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle that limits liability for negligence or breach to those harms or losses that a reasonable person would have anticipated as probable consequences of the conduct at the time it occurred. The test asks whether the intervening force or the type of harm was foreseeable even if the precise mechanism was not. When foreseeability is absent the chain of proximate causation or recovery for special damages is broken.
Frostline Textiles sold parkas only to retailers in State X. A buyer later carried one into State Y where it caused injury. Frostline had no offices, advertising, or sales efforts in State Y. The court denied recovery because the precise manner of injury in State Y was not a probable consequence that a reasonable seller would have foreseen at the time of sale.
Frederick Ferguson stabbed a victim who lingered for months before dying. At the time of the act state law required death within a year and a day for murder. The state supreme court later abolished the rule and applied the new standard to Ferguson. The Court held the unforeseeable enlargement violated due process because Ferguson could not have anticipated the expanded liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Frank Fisher, a felon, possessed a firearm that state law had recently made illegal for him. The new subsection imposed serious penalties without any prior notice to Fisher that his previously lawful conduct was now criminal. The court found the statute unconstitutional as applied because the absence of notice rendered the risk unforeseeable.
Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot in an agricultural area. Years later Del E. Webb began building a large residential community nearby. Residents complained of odors. The court required Spur to relocate because the developer could not have foreseen the feedlot when planning the project and the harm was therefore not foreseeable at the time of the original use.
Consolidated Rail's derailment shut down an airport for several days. People Express Airlines lost substantial revenue from canceled flights. The airline had no property damage. The court allowed recovery only for those economic losses that were particularly foreseeable to the railroad because of the airport's proximity and the nature of the cargo.
Johns-Mansville sold asbestos insulation without warning of cancer risks unknown at the time of sale. Workers later developed disease. The court held that the manufacturer could still be liable under strict products liability because the risk of harm was deemed foreseeable under the developing scientific knowledge even if the precise danger was not known when the product left the factory.
Courts ask whether the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of an intervening cause of that general type or whether the kind of harm suffered was itself foreseeable. If either condition is met the original negligence remains the proximate cause. If neither the intervening force nor the harm was foreseeable the intervening cause supersedes and cuts off liability.
No. The rule requires only that the party in breach had reason to foresee the loss as a probable result of breach at the time of contracting. The amount need not be precisely calculable provided the fact of loss meets the separate certainty requirement.
No. The rule requires purposeful availment of the forum's market or protections. Awareness that a consumer might later carry the product into the state is insufficient to establish the minimum contacts needed for jurisdiction.
…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…