Under the majority rule, what is required for a defendant to be liable?

Under the majority rule in tort law, for a defendant to be held liable, the harm suffered by the plaintiff must be foreseeable. This principle is rooted in the concept of duty of care, where a defendant is expected to take reasonable actions to avoid causing harm to others. If the harm caused was not foreseeable, it can be argued that the defendant did not breach a duty owed to the plaintiff, and therefore, liability may not attach.

For example, if a defendant engages in conduct that a reasonable person could foresee would likely result in injury to another, they may be held liable if that injury occurs. Ultimately, foreseeability plays a critical role in establishing the relationship between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm.

The other options do not capture this fundamental principle of liability in tort law. The requirement for tangible and visible injuries, while relevant in certain contexts, is not a universal standard for liability. Intent is a requirement for certain types of torts, such as intentional torts, but not for negligence claims, which are more prevalent. Lastly, while quantifiable harm is relevant in assessing damages, liability is not solely dependent on the extent of harm but rather on whether the harm was foreseeable in the first place.