California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Quigley v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, 65 Cal.App.4th 1027, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 792 (Cal. App. 1998):
In making this policy decision Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 tells us we should consider "the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved." (Id. at p. 113, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.