California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assoc., 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 (Cal. App. 2000):
It is appropriate to depart from this standard only when there are clear public policy reasons for doing so. In making that determination, a court must weigh the following factors: (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (3) the proximity of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury sustained, (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, (5) the policy of preventing future harm, (6) the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community from imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and (7) the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 112-113.)
"The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land in accordance with section 1714 of the Civil Code is whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in view of the probability of injury to others . . . ." (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 119.)
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.