What is the test for determining whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care?

In order to establish negligence, it must be shown that: (1) the defendant owes the plaintiff a legal duty; (2) the defendant breached the duty; (3) there is a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulted from the breach of the duty of care. (Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 366, 377-378.) Policy considerations involved in determining whether

Page 7

the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care include (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, (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 of 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 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113.)

The court's role with regard to determining duty is to "'evaluate... whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately be imposed on the negligent party.'" (Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 378.)