Also known as: scope of foreseeable harms · foreseeability · foreseeable harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The limitation on tort liability to those harms that a reasonable person would have anticipated as a probable result of the defendant's conduct. Liability does not extend to injuries too remote or attenuated from the original act even if some causal connection exists.
A manufacturer in State X sells a vehicle to a buyer who later drives it to State Y and causes an accident there. The injured party sues the manufacturer in tort. The court denies recovery because the accident location and resulting harm were too remote for a reasonable person to have foreseen at the time of sale.
A tenant leases an apartment from a corporate landlord. A hidden structural flaw in the unit causes injury. The landlord is held liable because the defect was one that a reasonable inspection would have revealed and the resulting harm fell within the foreseeable risks of renting defective premises.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A rail company negligently causes a chemical spill near an airport. The spill forces closure of the airport and grounds flights. An airline sues for economic losses. Recovery is denied because the airline's harm lies outside the scope of foreseeable harm from a localized spill.
A shipbuilder installs a defective turbine in a vessel. The turbine fails at sea and damages the ship itself. The ship owner sues the turbine maker in tort. Recovery is barred because the harm to the vessel was not a personal injury or damage to other property that a reasonable builder would have foreseen.
A manufacturer sells asbestos insulation without warnings. Workers inhale fibers and later develop cancer. The manufacturer is liable because the disease was a foreseeable consequence of exposure even though the precise mechanism was not fully understood at the time of sale.
A therapist learns that a patient intends to kill a specific person. The therapist does not warn the intended victim. The victim is killed. Liability attaches because the harm to the identified victim was within the scope of foreseeable harm once the threat was known.
No. The defendant need only have foreseen harm of the general type that resulted. Once the broad category of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of injury even if the precise manner or severity was unexpected.
Supporting sources
Actual cause asks whether the defendant's act was a factual link in the chain leading to harm. Scope of foreseeable harm is a policy limit that cuts off liability for harms too remote or attenuated even when factual causation exists.
Supporting sources
Yes. The eggshell-plaintiff rule holds the defendant responsible for the full extent of harm once the general type of injury is foreseeable. The defendant's lack of knowledge of the plaintiff's particular susceptibility does not shrink the scope of foreseeable harm.
Supporting sources
Yes. In intentional torts such as battery or IIED, the defendant is liable for all harm that flows from the intentional act even if the precise injury was not intended, provided the harm remains within the scope of what a reasonable person would anticipate from the conduct.
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…