California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ludwig v. City of San Diego, 65 Cal.App.4th 1105, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 809 (Cal. App. 1998):
6 Dillon did not view reasonable foreseeability only as a general test for negligence liability but as a consideration of " 'primary importance in establishing the element of duty.' [Citations.]" (Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 739, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, italics added.)
7 Case law indicates that the remaining considerations are not alternative bases for a finding of duty where foreseeability is absent. Rather, they come into play where foreseeability is present, but there is an issue as to whether foreseeability alone is sufficient to warrant imposition of liability. (See Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 476, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 936 P.2d 70.)
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.