What is the test for a jury to determine whether a community has a duty to protect a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 38 Cal.3d 112, 695 P.2d 653 (Cal. 1985):
The value to the community of imposing such a duty is manifest. That plaintiff suffered serious injury is clear. A jury's affirmative finding on foreseeability would establish not only " 'the foreseeability of harm to plaintiff,' " but also a sufficiently " 'close[ ] connection between the defendant[s'] conduct and the injury suffered.' " (See Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 59-60, fn. 14, 192 Cal.Rptr. 857, 665 P.2d 947.) 8 Although
Page 366
Once a court finds that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff, it is for the factfinder to decide whether the security measures were reasonable under the circumstances. (See Musgrove v. Ambrose Properties, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 53, 150 Cal.Rptr. 722.) The jury must decide whether the security was adequate.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
