A breach of duty occurs in an event where an individual or an entity possess a duty of care towards another person or company but fails to meet the prerequisite standards. This means that a person can be liable for negligence in the event of a personal injury case where the breach of duty elicited another person injuries. It is worth noting that remoteness refers to a legal test of causation adopted in an event there is a need for making a determination of the forms of loss elicited by a breach of contrite or duty. As Sands (1986) noted, this should be compensated by a damages reward. Therefore, to determine the extent in which a damage caused by a breach of duty has to be foreseeable, several issues must be prioritized. One issue is whether a defendant had any duty to fulfill towards a plaintiff and if that is the case whether it was a duty of reasonable care or hedged on professional liability, premises liabilities or other forms of the relationship existing between the plaintiff and the defendant. Second is whether the accused had foreseen the risk of harm to the plaintiff or if they should have reasonably have anticipated it. The rationale of this is that the issue of alternatives availability is critical in products liability cases.
Do you depend mainly on your risk assessment to identify such breaches?