Yes No Share to Facebook
Reasonably Foreseeable: Remoteness Principles Regarding a View to Risk of Harm
Question: What does foreseeability mean in a negligence lawsuit?
Answer: Foreseeability in a negligence lawsuit refers to whether a reasonable person could predict the risk of harm resulting from an action. It is a key component of negligence law, which assesses if an individual failed to exercise reasonable care, potentially causing harm that could have been reasonably anticipated. As illustrated in Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales), [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587 and Mustapha v. Culligan, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, foreseeability is determined by evaluating potential risks from a foresight perspective rather than hindsight. Understanding this principle can help clarify whether negligence occurred. Need legal advice?
Answer: Connect with professionals today at Success.Legal for guidance.
When Foreseeability Is Referred to Within a Negligence Lawsuit, What Does Foreseeability Mean?
The Question of Foreseeability Requires a Review of Whether An Incident Resulting in Harm Was Something That a Reasonable Person Could Think of as Having Possibility of Occurring.
Understanding Reasonable Foreseeability Including Remoteness Principles Regarding Risk of Causing Harm
The principle of reasonable foreseeability applies within negligence law. To simplify, reasonable foreseeability involves the awareness of risk of harm that might arise from a specific behavior. As the basics of negligence law involve the question of what a reasonably minded person would do in a given situation, it is necessary to review what a reasonably minded person might foresee as a potential risk arising from the specific behaviour that is being challenged as unreasonable.
The Law
In the cases of Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587, as well as Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, the Supreme Court explained the concept of reasonable foreseeability and remoteness whereas it was said:
[53] Whether or not something is “reasonably foreseeable” is an objective test. The analysis is focussed on whether someone in the defendant’s position ought reasonably to have foreseen the harm rather than whether the specific defendant did. Courts should be vigilant in ensuring that the analysis is not clouded by the fact that the event in question actually did occur. The question is properly focussed on whether foreseeability was present prior to the incident occurring and not with the aid of 20/20 hindsight: L. N. Klar and C.S.G. Jefferies, Tort Law (6th ed. 2017), at p. 212.
[12] The remoteness inquiry asks whether “the harm [is] too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable” (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 360). Since The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the principle has been that “it is the foresight of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C.), at p. 424).
[13] Much has been written on how probable or likely a harm needs to be in order to be considered reasonably foreseeable. The parties raise the question of whether a reasonably foreseeable harm is one whose occurrence is probable or merely possible. In my view, these terms are misleading. Any harm which has actually occurred is “possible”; it is therefore clear that possibility alone does not provide a meaningful standard for the application of reasonable foreseeability. The degree of probability that would satisfy the reasonable foreseeability requirement was described in The Wagon Mound (No. 2) as a “real risk”, i.e. “one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendan[t] . . . and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched” (Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty., [1967] A.C. 617 (P.C.), at p. 643).
[14] The remoteness inquiry depends not only upon the degree of probability required to meet the reasonable foreseeability requirement, but also upon whether or not the plaintiff is considered objectively or subjectively. One of the questions that arose in this case was whether, in judging whether the personal injury was foreseeable, one looks at a person of “ordinary fortitude” or at a particular plaintiff with his or her particular vulnerabilities. This question may be acute in claims for mental injury, since there is a wide variation in how particular people respond to particular stressors. The law has consistently held — albeit within the duty of care analysis — that the question is what a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer: see White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1509 (H.L.); Devji v. Burnaby (District) (1999), 180 D.L.R. (4th) 205, 1999 BCCA 599; Vanek. As stated in White, at p. 1512: “The law expects reasonable fortitude and robustness of its citizens and will not impose liability for the exceptional frailty of certain individuals.”
The Rankin and Mustapha cases explainl foreseeability as pertaining to whether a person could reasonably anticipate that specific behavior might cause harm to some other person. Furthermore, following the guidance of Rankin and Mustapha cases, while evaluating whether harm was foreseeable, a court should approach the question from a retro-active yet forward-looking perspective instead of looking back perspective after an incident has actually occurred..
Summary Comment
Negligence law encompasses the assessment of whether an individual behaved with an unreasonable lack of care and should be deemed responsible for harm brought about by such lack of care. Within the inquiry of whether the behavior lacked due care is the question regarding whether the ensuing harm could be reasonably anticipated. Negligence fails to arise if harm from the conduct in question was reasonably unforeseeable.