<P> Drawing upon the work of scholars such as Fowler V. Harper, Fleming James Jr., and William Prosser, California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action . </P> <P> California Civil Code section 1714 imposes a general duty of ordinary care, which by default requires all persons to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to others . In the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian, the court held that judicial exceptions to this general duty of care should only be created if clearly justified based on the following public - policy factors: </P> <Ul> <Li> the foreseeability of harm to the injured party; </Li> <Li> the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury; </Li> <Li> the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered; </Li> <Li> the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct; </Li> <Li> the policy of preventing future harm; </Li> <Li> the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach; </Li> <Li> and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved . </Li> </Ul> <Li> the foreseeability of harm to the injured party; </Li>

When do you have a duty of care