California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 192 Cal.Rptr. 857, 34 Cal.3d 49, 665 P.2d 947 (Cal. 1983):
"When ... the existence of a duty rests on the reasonable foreseeability of injury to the plaintiff, it may become primarily a question for the jury unless reasonable minds cannot differ. Necessarily involved in submitting the case to the jury, however, is a preliminary determination that, granted a foreseeable risk, a duty arises. On the other hand, there are many situations involving foreseeable risks where there is no duty." (Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 [34 Cal.3d 61] Cal.2d 60, 66, 271 P.2d 23.) Foreseeability does not establish duty; it merely defines its limits.
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.