Also known as:foreseeable zones of risk · zone of danger · zone of risk
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A class of persons or area of potential harm to which a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care because injury to them was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct. The zone is measured at the time of the negligent act by asking whether a reasonable person would have anticipated harm to someone in the plaintiff's position.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Distant Vendor Struck by Stampede
Liberty Stage hired Vertex Live for security at an outdoor festival despite the contractor's known history of inadequate staffing. After fights near the main stage escalated and guards radioed warnings of spreading violence, Liberty Stage took no additional steps to control the crowd. The resulting stampede surged hundreds of yards along the only available paths and knocked vendor Yuri to the ground, causing fractures. Yuri's location fell within the foreseeable zone of risk created by Liberty Stage's failure to respond to the reports.
Pedestrian Injured by Unmaintained Lights
Clay Electric contracted to maintain streetlights along a roadway but failed to repair a burned-out fixture. A driver lost visibility at night and struck pedestrian Johnson, who was walking along the shoulder. Johnson's position on the roadway placed him inside the foreseeable zone of risk created by the company's negligent maintenance of the lights.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
10
Practice Questions5
· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does the foreseeable zone of risk limit the class of plaintiffs who may recover in negligence?+
A defendant owes a duty only to those persons within the range of reasonably foreseeable risk created by the negligent conduct. If a reasonable person would not have foreseen injury to someone in the plaintiff's position at the time of the act, no duty exists even if harm occurs.
Does a plaintiff located hundreds of yards from the initial negligent conduct fall outside the foreseeable zone of risk?+
Not necessarily. When the defendant's omissions channel harm along a direct path to a distant location, a jury may find the plaintiff remains within the zone if the risk of that path of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
What role does actual notice of escalating danger play in defining the foreseeable zone of risk?+
Specific reports of spreading violence or misconduct after the defendant has already created a risk can expand the zone to include persons in locations that would otherwise appear remote, because the defendant now has reason to anticipate harm along the available paths.
TortsIntentional torts · Harms to the person and property interests (assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental distress, trespass to land and chattels, conversion)UBEIntermediate