Negligence occurs when I fail to meet the reasonable standard of care expected in a similar situation. To establish negligence, foreseeability is crucial. Foreseeability assesses how predictable an injury or accident was based on my actions. The question is whether I should have reasonably foreseen the consequences of my action or inaction. If the injury was foreseeable, then I may be responsible for the consequence.  Foreseeability asks how likely it was that a person could have reasonably anticipated the potential or actual results of their actions.At the heart of foreseeability lies the concept of the "reasonable person"—a hypothetical legal construct used to evaluate behavior. This standard represents an ordinary individual exercising average judgment, foresight, and prudence. It is not based on the subjective capabilities or knowledge of the defendant but on an objective benchmark of societal expectations. For example, if a driver operates a vehicle recklessly, the law asks whether a reasonable person in the same situation could foresee the risk of an accident resulting from such behavior. If the answer is yes, then the driver may be held liable for any harm caused. This approach ensures that foreseeability is applied uniformly, avoiding arbitrary or overly personalized interpretations of conduct.

• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch781
  Concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence. It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met.
  
  • The defendants, Birmingham Waterworks Company, were responsible for supplying Birmingham with water under a statutory provision.
  • The company installed a fireplug near Mr. Blyth's house, which failed during severe frost, causing damage.
  • Baron Alderson defined negligence as failing to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances.
  • The court ruled that the extreme frost was unforeseeable, absolving the company of negligence.
• Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778
  
  • The defendant's employees left a hole in the pavement with only a shovel as a warning.
  • The claimant, who was blind, fell into the pit and sustained injuries.
  • The court ruled that it was foreseeable that a blind person could be at risk and that reasonable precautions should have been taken.
• Bolton v Stone
  
  • A cricket ball hit out of the ground struck Miss Stone outside her house.
  • The cricket club had played on the ground since 1864, with only rare instances of balls leaving the field.
  • The court held that the risk was too remote for negligence as such incidents were highly improbable.
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co.
  
  • A ship's engineers carelessly spilled oil into Sydney waters, which later caught fire due to welding sparks.
  • The trial court ruled no negligence but found liability under public nuisance.
  • The Privy Council held that negligence depends on whether the harm was foreseeable, stating that an engineer should have foreseen the risk of fire.
  • The case established that liability depends on the foreseeability of harm rather than the actual probability of occurrence.
• Remoteness of Damage
  
  • Proximate cause examines whether the harm was a natural and probable consequence of an act.
  • If the harm is too remote or unforeseeable, it is not actionable.
  • Negligence must be directly linked to the damage; liability cannot exist in the abstract.

Oehler v. Davis. An individual is driving too fast because he is late for work. Suppose he causes an accident on a major highway which creates a huge, but foreseeable, traffic jam. There is a doctor who is stuck in the traffic jam and fails to reach a patient in time for emergency treatment. The patient dies. No court would allow the deceased person's family to recover in tort against the negligent driver. The harm is simply too tenuous, too remote.A dog collar manufacturer sold a defective dog collar. The collar broke, allowing the dog to escape its owner and bite someone.

There is no cause of action against the dog collar's manufacturer, because the harm was too remote. Lewis v. Kehoe.  A day care center negligently allowed a child to consume poison. Relatives with whom the child was residing lost custody of the child, because bruises caused by the poisoning were mistaken for the results of child abuse. The relatives alleged "extreme mental hardship, anguish and humiliation, loneliness - and disruption from the loss of the companionship of the child.

The relatives' claim against the day care center for loss of custody was too remote. A machine tool company sold a defective product to an employer. As a result, an employee is seriously injured and the employer, who provides worker compensation benefits, is forced to pay the employee's medical expenses. A direct claim by the employer against the manufacturer would not be allowed because the harm to the employer, though foreseeable, is too remote.In these examples, the remote harm was serious and often foreseeable. Nevertheless, the connection between the harms and the wrongs were too remote.

Howard Goldhart was charged with manslaughter following a series of events that led to the death of an individual. Whether the damage (the death) was too remote from Goldhart's alleged careless conduct. Goldhart was involved in a situation where his actions (or inactions) set off a chain of events. Goldhart's conduct and careless actions contributed indirectly led to the victim's death.

The damage (the death) was too remote from Goldhart's conduct to establish negligence and that the causal connection between the alleged careless conduct and the eventual harm was not sufficiently direct or foreseeable. As a result, Goldhart was not liable for the manslaughter charge based on negligence, there must be a clear and foreseeable causal connection between their conduct and the harm suffered. It is important that proximate causation and foreseeability are important elements for negligent actions.