Georgia torts: a defendant's liability to a third-party beneficiary hinges on foreseeably harmful negligence in the contract.

Outline (brief skeleton)

• Hook: When a contract is drafted, a bystander can still get hurt—and that touch of liability hinges on foreseeability.

• Core idea: For a defendant to be liable to a third-party beneficiary, negligence in preparing the legal transaction must be foreseeably harmful.

• What that means in plain language: duty of care to the beneficiary, breach through negligent drafting/handling, and causation tied to foreseeable harm.

• The other choices explained away: A (beneficiary’s direct involvement), B (severe and intentional harm), D (suer must be in their own right) don’t fit the standard.

• A concrete example to imagine: a faulty contract document that impacts someone who isn’t a party.

• Georgia-specific flavor: how foreseeability and duty play out in state law, with practical cues for bar topics.

• How to approach this on a Georgia bar-style scenario: read facts, spot duty, test foreseeability, check causation, and differentiate from other theories.

• Quick tips and wrap-up.

Georgia torts: the third-party beneficiary question you’ll actually use

Let’s get straight to the point. When a defendant ends up on the hook for harm to someone who isn’t a party to a contract, the math isn’t about who signed the papers. It’s about whether the defendant’s negligent actions in getting the deal done created risk that a third party would be harmed, and whether that harm was reasonably foreseeable. In this set, the correct answer is C: Negligence in preparing the legal transaction must be foreseeably harmful.

What does that mean in plain words?

• Negligence is the standard we’re talking about. It’s the failure to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. It’s not about malice or a bombshell mistake; it’s about a careless misstep that a prudent person would avoid.

• Foreseeability matters. The harm has to be something a reasonably careful actor could anticipate as a likely consequence of the negligent conduct. If you can’t connect the harm to what a reasonable person would foresee, you’re not there yet.

• The “third-party beneficiary” angle means the harmed person isn’t in the contract party circle. They’re outside the deal, yet they can be protected if the contract was meant to benefit them and the negligent handling of the transaction jeopardized that benefit.

Why “foreseeable harm” is the linchpin

Here’s the crux. If the contract is drafted or executed carelessly, but no one could have guessed that a non-party would be hurt, there’s no liability to that third party. The law wants to prevent reckless conduct and to reward careful, thoughtful drafting—but it doesn’t punish every unfortunate result if it wasn’t something the actor could reasonably foresee. So the answer hinges on foreseeability, not on the beneficiary’s level of involvement, the severity of the harm, or who sues first.

Why the other choices don’t fit

• A. The beneficiary must be directly involved in the contract

This is a tempting thought but not required. A third-party can be outside the contract yet still be entitled to protection if the circumstances show the policy of the contract was to benefit them and the harm flows from negligent handling. So direct involvement isn’t a necessary condition.

• B. The harm must be severe and intentional

This sets the bar too high. The standard isn’t about severity or intent. Negligence is about carelessness, and foreseeability is about what could reasonably be expected to occur. A minor, incidental harm or even non-intentional harm can matter if it’s a foreseeable result of negligence.

• D. The beneficiary must sue in their own right

This phrase can mislead. A third-party beneficiary can and often does sue as the beneficiary of the contract, but the core issue isn’t the form of the suit. The issue is whether the defendant owed a duty to the beneficiary, breached it through negligent conduct, and caused foreseeable harm. The way the suit is framed isn’t the primary condition for liability.

A concrete picture you can hold onto

Think about a developer hiring a general contractor and a surveyor to draft a site plan. Suppose the contract documents are drafted carelessly, with a faulty easement description that should have alerted the buyer about access issues. If that negligence in drafting or preparing the transaction leads to a real, foreseeable harm—the buyer’s ability to access the property—that buyer is a potential third-party beneficiary of the contract. Even though the buyer isn’t a party to every facet of the agreement, the negligent drafting links to harm that could have been foreseen. That’s the logic behind the foreseeability requirement.

Georgia flavor: what changes, what stays the same

Georgia law tends to look at duty and foreseeability in a practical, no-nonsense way. The idea is to keep the system fair: if a defendant’s careless handling of a legal transaction creates a real risk of harm to someone not in the contractual circle, the door opens to liability. The key is showing that the defendant knew or should have known that their actions could affect the beneficiary, and that the harm actually flowed from those actions. It’s not about a mystical theory; it’s about a tangible duty of care arising from the conduct around the contract.

How to approach this on a Georgia bar-style scenario

• Start with the facts. Identify who is a party to the contract and who’s outside it but could be a beneficiary.

• Look for the duty. Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the beneficiary in the way the transaction was prepared or executed?

• Test foreseeability. Was the harm a foreseeable consequence of negligent drafting or handling? If yes, that strengthens the case for liability.

• Check causation. Did the negligent act cause the harm to the beneficiary? There needs to be a direct link, not a distant ripple.

• Distinguish from other theories. Don’t jump to “the party failed to act in good faith” or other non-negligence angles unless the facts truly support them. The core is negligence tied to foreseeability.

• Remember the practical reality. Bar-style prompts love a clean line: foreseeability + duty + causation. If any piece is missing, the answer shifts.

A simple, real-world example to anchor the idea

Imagine a city contract where a developer promises to deliver a public park deed to the city and to a volunteer group that helps with the project. The contract is drafted so that a crucial easement is misdescribed due to sloppy legal drafting. The misdescription isn’t just a paperwork hiccup—it causes the volunteer group to lose access to a key parcel they needed for fundraising events. The harm to the volunteer group is foreseeable because it’s tied directly to the drafting error. If the negligent drafting is shown, the volunteer group could have a viable claim as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. This is a practical way to see how foreseeability anchors liability beyond the contracting parties.

Tips for spotting this on the Georgia bar

• When a fact pattern mentions a contract, a non-party harmed by the contract’s execution, and some form of negligence in preparing the terms or documents, flag foreseeability as the key test.

• Look for language about the intention of the contract to benefit someone outside the primary parties. That’s the heart of third-party beneficiary potential.

• Separate the ideas of “duty to the beneficiary” from “duty to the contracting parties.” A breach to the latter doesn’t automatically create liability to the former unless foreseeability and the beneficiary’s interest align.

• Don’t overemphasize severity or intentional harm. Neglecting the simplicity of foreseeability can mislead you down a more complicated path.

A few stylistic notes that help in real life

• Use plain language when explaining these ideas to a client or a study partner. “Foreseeable harm” is a compact phrase with big meaning; spell it out in terms of what a reasonable person would expect.

• Mix in small, concrete examples. Real-world scenarios—like the easement case above—make the concept stick without getting tangled in abstract theory.

• Tie everything back to the main test: foreseeability of harm caused by negligent preparation of the transaction. If you can map the facts to that test, you’re in solid shape.

Final take for the Georgia bar

The bottom line is straightforward: for a defendant to be liable to a third-party beneficiary, negligence in preparing the legal transaction must be foreseeably harmful. That foreseeability creates the necessary connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harm suffered by someone outside the contract. The other answer choices miss the essential link—the duty of care in the context of how the contract is prepared and the foreseeability of resulting harm.

If you’re studying this topic for the Georgia bar, keep the core test in mind and practice spotting it in quick fact patterns. A well-placed question about duty, foreseeability, and causation can reveal a lot about a claimant’s chances. With a clear eye on these elements, you’ll approach third-party beneficiary liability with confidence—ready to articulate the idea with precise language and a practical mindset.