Yes No Share to Facebook
Reasonably Foreseeable:
Remoteness Principles Regarding a View to Risk of Harm
Last Updated: July 02 2025
Question: What does reasonable foreseeability mean in the context of negligence law?
Answer: Reasonable foreseeability refers to the ability to anticipate the potential for harm arising from specific conduct. This principle is crucial in negligence cases, as liability may depend on whether a reasonable person could predict that certain actions might lead to injury. At Cross Legal Services, we can assist you in navigating these complex legal issues and help you understand your rights and obligations.
In a Negligence Lawsuit, What Does Foreseeability Mean?
Foreseeability Involves the Review of Whether An Incident That Resulted In Harm Was Something That a Reasonable Person Could Think of As Having a 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
Within the Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587, and Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 114, cases, the Supreme Court explained the concept of reasonable foreseeability 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.”
As explained in Rankin and Mustapha, foreseeability involves whether a person of similar intellectual fortitude could reasonably anticipate that certain conduct could result in the occurrence of harm to another person. Additionally, per Rankin and Mustapha, when reviewing whether harm was foreseeable a court must consider the incident from the perspective of foresight rather than in hindsight.
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.
NOTE: A significant volume of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and effective legal assistance rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, empowering them to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Essential to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Cross Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy to secure efficient and beneficial outcomes for clients.