Feedback

 

(a) No, that's not correct. The answer you chose suggests that the test of foreseeability is a wholly subjective one, that is, judged according to what the particular defendant should have foreseen. This is not how the question is approached.

To decide whether harm was foreseeable, the courts developed the notion of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant, asking whether such a person would have foreseen the danger in the circumstances.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 156 ER 1047.