Also known as: foreseeable plaintiff
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
Yes. 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
…of liability in these negligence cases based on notions of a special relationship between the negligent tortfeasors and the foreseeable plaintiffs who relied on the quality of defendants’ work or services, to their detriment. The special relationship, in reality, is an expression of the courts’ satisfaction that a duty of care existed…