foreseeability

Foreseeability asks how likely it was that a person could have anticipated the potential or actual results of their actions. This is a question in contract and tort law. The standard that courts use is that of “reasonability.” In contract law, reasonability asks if the harms resulting from a breach were a natural result of that breach. In tort law, the “ reasonable person ” standard asks if an ordinary person in that same circumstance would have reasonably acted in the same way.

In breach of contract cases, courts measure foreseeability from the time a contract was made, not the time of the breach. To determine foreseeability, courts consider if damages were a direct and obvious result of the breach ( general damages ). Courts also look to the parties’ understanding when making the contract, as they might have reasonably contemplated what damages should be owed in the event of a breach. Further, counts consider if a person had adequate knowledge about the specifics of their situation, that they could have foreseen the probability of damages.

In tort negligence lawsuits, foreseeability asks whether a person could or should reasonably have foreseen the harms that resulted from their actions. If resulting harms were not foreseeable, a defendant might successfully prove that they were not liable. However, even if a defendant could not have foreseen the scale of the resulting harm, they might still be found liable if a harm of that type was foreseeable.

[Last reviewed in August of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

Wex

• LIFE EVENTS
• accidents & injuries (tort law)
• mass tort litigation
• product liability law
• standards of tort liability
• tort damages
• wex definitions