What is the test for determining whether a public body owes a duty of due care to a plaintiff?

"In determining whether the defendant owed a duty of due care to the plaintiff in a given case, the courts have applied the balancing test derived from Rowland v. Christian [(1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113]: '. . . [T]he major [considerations] are 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.'"

The following additional factors are considered when a public entity is a defendant: "the extent of the agency's powers; the role imposed on it by law; and the limitations imposed on it by budget. [Citations.]" (Adams v. City of Fremont, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 268.)