What are the factors used by courts to assess the existence of a legal duty?

Ditto does not even meaningfully analyze the factors courts use to assess the existence of a legal duty. As summarized by Gray v. Kircher, supra, 193 Cal.App.3d 1069, cited by Ditto, the existence of a legal duty turns on a number of factors, "including '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. 1073.) Gray also makes clear that foreseeability alone is not the touchstone of the existence of a duty of care: "While foreseeability has frequently been cited as the predominant factor in

Page 6