Opinion ID: 1795463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: McCain and the Foreseeable Zone of Risk Test

Text: We explained in McCain that duty ordinarily arises from four general sources: (1) legislative enactments or administration regulations; (2) judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations; (3) other judicial precedent; and (4) a duty arising from the general facts of the case. McCain, 593 So.2d at 503 n. 2 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 285 (1965)). We further explained that the determination of the existence of a common law duty flowing from the general facts of the case under our negligence law depends upon an evaluation of the concept of foreseeability of harm. Id. at 503. We held that where a person's conduct is such that it creates a foreseeable zone of risk posing a general threat of harm to others, a legal duty will ordinarily be recognized to ensure that the underlying threatening conduct is carried out reasonably. Id. at 502-03. [2] As noted by the district court in Davis, 909 So.2d at 311 & n. 1, we have applied the McCain analysis to a countless variety of factual circumstances in order to determine the existence of a duty under our negligence law. [3]