(a) Even when a duty of care exists, no legal obligation arises to avoid very remote prospects of harm. In the present case, the foreseeable harm is so unlikely to happen that the state government is under no obligation to prevent it.
(b) Even when a duty of care exists, no legal obligation arises to avoid very remote prospects of harm. But if the harm is reasonably likely to happen either sooner or later, as in the present case, then an obligation arises to prevent it.
(c) When a duty of care exists, a legal obligation arises to avoid harm only if it is more likely than not to happen. In the present case, the probabilities are not that high and the state government is therefore not obliged to avoid the harm.
|