According to the Cardozo view, who is owed a duty of care?

The Cardozo view, as articulated in the landmark case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., emphasizes the concept of foreseeability in the determination of duty of care. According to this perspective, a duty of care is owed only to those individuals who fall within the “zone of foreseeable harm” – that is, those who can reasonably be anticipated to be affected by one’s actions.

This principle establishes a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the potential harm that could arise, reinforcing the idea that a duty arises from a reasonable expectation of impact on others. If a person’s conduct has the potential to foreseeably cause harm to someone, then a duty of care exists toward that person.

By contrast, the other options do not align with this view. The notion that a duty is owed to all individuals disregards the essential element of foreseeability that Cardozo emphasized. The idea of only children being owed a duty lacks the broader application of the foreseeability standard. Similarly, stating that anyone exposed to possible harm is owed a duty is too vague and does not adhere to the more focused approach of identifying a clear “zone” in which duty is owed. Thus, the correct answer reflects the nuanced understanding of duty of care that