6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Js v. Rthgreen2 sentences2020In the duty of care analysis, foreseeability "is based on the defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis." J.S., 155 N.J. at 338 . 2019In the duty of care analysis, foreseeability "is based on the defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis." J.S., 155 N.J. at 338 . | 1 | 5 |
LaFage v. Janigreen1 sentence2021Therefore, it is not the statutory test described above that controls here, but rather the duty-of-care analysis that has developed through case law -- the particularized foreseeability inquiry adopted for harm caused by another to third persons, followed by the four-prong fairness and public policy analysis. v. Jani, 166 N.J. 412, 460 (2001) (LaVecchia, J., concurring) (“The Legislature is free to expand, modify, or abrogate common law as it may reasonably determine.”). 31 IV. | 1 | 1 |
McIntosh v. Milanogreen1 sentence2021In McIntosh v. Milano, the court held “that a psychiatrist or therapist may have a duty to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to protect an intended or potential victim of his patient when” the psychiatrist “determines, or should determine, in the appropriate factual setting and in accordance with the standards of his profession established at trial, that the patient is or may present a probability of danger to that person.” 168 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.green2 sentences2003See, e.g., Clohesy, supra, 149 N.J. at 514-16 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (imposing a duty on the owner of a supermarket to provide security or warnings in his parking lot to protect customers where there had been a large number of criminal incidents on his premises the previous two-and-a-half years); Wlasiuk v. McElwee, 334 N.J.Super. 661 , 760 A. 2d 829 (App.Div.2000) (imposing a duty of care and warning on a driver who allowed a stranger to ride in his car where his passenger was shot by the stranger as it was foreseeable that allowing a stranger to ride in the vehicle would lead to danger). 2003See, e.g., Clohesy, supra, 149 N.J. at 514-16 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (imposing a duty on the owner of a supermarket to provide security or warnings in his parking lot to protect customers where there had been a large number of criminal incidents on his premises the previous two-and-a-half years); Wlasiuk v. McElwee, 334 N.J.Super. 661 , 760 A. 2d 829 (App.Div.2000) (imposing a duty of care and warning on a driver who allowed a stranger to ride in his car where his passenger was shot by the stranger as it was foreseeable that allowing a stranger to ride in the vehicle would lead to danger). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carvalho v. Toll Bros. and Developers
green
2 sentences2020That knowledge may arise from actual awareness, Carvalho, 143 N.J. at 576 , or knowledge may be constructive when the defendant "was in a position to foresee and discover the risk of harm . . . ." Id. at 578 . 2020That knowledge may arise from actual awareness, Carvalho, 143 N.J. at 576 , or knowledge may be constructive when the defendant "was in a position to foresee and discover the risk of harm . . . ." Id. at 578 . | 3 | 2019–2020 |
TRACEY L. VIZZONI, ETC. VS. B.M.D. (L-0575-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
green
1 sentence2020"In the duty of care analysis, foreseeability 'is based on the defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis.'" Vizzoni, 459 N.J. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wlasiuk v. McElwee
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Clohesy, supra, 149 N.J. at 514-16 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (imposing a duty on the owner of a supermarket to provide security or warnings in his parking lot to protect customers where there had been a large number of criminal incidents on his premises the previous two-and-a-half years); Wlasiuk v. McElwee, 334 N.J.Super. 661 , 760 A. 2d 829 (App.Div.2000) (imposing a duty of care and warning on a driver who allowed a stranger to ride in his car where his passenger was shot by the stranger as it was foreseeable that allowing a stranger to ride in the vehicle would lead to danger). 2003See, e.g., Clohesy, supra, 149 N.J. at 514-16 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (imposing a duty on the owner of a supermarket to provide security or warnings in his parking lot to protect customers where there had been a large number of criminal incidents on his premises the previous two-and-a-half years); Wlasiuk v. McElwee, 334 N.J.Super. 661 , 760 A. 2d 829 (App.Div.2000) (imposing a duty of care and warning on a driver who allowed a stranger to ride in his car where his passenger was shot by the stranger as it was foreseeable that allowing a stranger to ride in the vehicle would lead to danger). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
James v. Arms Technology, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003See also J.S., supra, 155 N.J. at 352 , 714 A. 2d 924 (imposing a duty on the wife of a sex offender to prevent or warn her neighbors of her husband's sexual abuse or propensity for sexual abuse); James v. Arms Tech., Inc., 359 N.J.Super. 291, 328 , 820 A. 2d 27 (App.Div. 2003) (imposing a duty on gun manufacturers of a more supervised scheme of distribution of weapons sold in Newark as it was foreseeable that the misuse of handguns would result in large costs to the city). 2003See also J.S., supra, 155 N.J. at 352 , 714 A. 2d 924 (imposing a duty on the wife of a sex offender to prevent or warn her neighbors of her husband's sexual abuse or propensity for sexual abuse); James v. Arms Tech., Inc., 359 N.J.Super. 291, 328 , 820 A. 2d 27 (App.Div. 2003) (imposing a duty on gun manufacturers of a more supervised scheme of distribution of weapons sold in Newark as it was foreseeable that the misuse of handguns would result in large costs to the city). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.