California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marois v. Royal InvestIGAtion & Patrol, Inc., 162 Cal.App.3d 193, 208 Cal.Rptr. 384 (Cal. App. 1984):
2 It is this type of duty analysis which causes the most confusion. Absent external policy considerations, everyone has a "duty" to act reasonably. (See Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 112, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561.) The scope of that duty is defined by the reasonable person standard. When a defendant has failed to take precautions against a risk of injury which was not reasonably forseeable, he has not acted unreasonably, i.e., he was not negligent. Thus, where forseeability of risk is the issue, the question is not whether a duty existed but rather whether an admitted duty has been breached or, more simply, whether the defendant was negligent.
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.