foreseeability test

It is now necessary to see how the courts have interpreted the reasonable foreseeability test.

The presence or absence of liability may be said to hang on a foreseeability test.

If this is taken in a very broad sense, then there is no difference between the direct consequence and the reasonable foreseeability test.

This means that the reasonable foreseeability test is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the claimant may demonstrate some fault.

Had the reasonable foreseeability test been used in Polemis, it is likely that the defendants would have been not liable.

The reasonable foreseeability test should not apply in strict liability torts as foresight of damage is not generally required to establish liability.