Also known as: prudent foresights · reasonable foresight · foreseeability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The capacity of a reasonable person to anticipate the natural and probable consequences of an act or omission. This capacity determines whether an intervening event or resulting harm remains within the scope of legal responsibility for the original conduct.
Prism Analytics sold a software tool to a buyer in State X. The buyer later carried the product into State Y without any action by Prism. When the tool caused injury in State Y, the court examined whether a seller exercising prudent foresight would have anticipated the risk of harm and remained legally responsible for the resulting damage.
Pamela Phillips rented an apartment from Pioneer Energy. The company knew the heating system had a recurring flaw that had injured prior tenants. When the defect caused new harm, the court examined whether a landlord exercising prudent foresight would have corrected the condition before leasing the unit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paige Porter relied on financial statements audited by Platinum Partners. The firm had identified red flags but issued an unqualified opinion anyway. In later litigation the court assessed whether prudent foresight by the auditors would have led them to foresee harm to third-party investors who used the report.
Pedro Pacheco worked with insulation containing asbestos supplied by Precision Tools. The company possessed early studies showing inhalation dangers. The court considered whether prudent foresight required the manufacturer to anticipate long-term disease among users and to provide stronger warnings at the time of sale.
Pavel Petrov dropped a package on a train platform. The impact caused a scale to topple onto a distant passenger. The court evaluated whether a person exercising prudent foresight would have anticipated that the package could dislodge the scale and injure someone standing far away.
Preston Pratt operated a cattle feedlot on land purchased years earlier. A developer later built homes nearby and complained of odors. The court weighed whether prudent foresight at the time of locating the feedlot would have allowed the operator to anticipate the arrival of residential neighbors and resulting nuisance claims.
Prudent foresight asks what a reasonable person would have anticipated given ordinary judgment and available information. It supplies the standard for deciding whether an intervening cause or resulting harm remains within the original actor's scope of responsibility rather than becoming too remote.
Supporting sources
No. The test focuses on whether the general type of harm or the risk of intervention was within the range a reasonable person would have considered. Precise details of the accident need not have been foreseen.
Supporting sources
Liability ends when an independent force or highly unusual occurrence intervenes in a way that a reasonable person would not have anticipated. The original conduct is then treated as too attenuated from the final injury.
Supporting sources
…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…