The Insidious Foreseeability Revolution

Abstract

The laws of medical malpractice have historically differed in significant ways from general liability laws. Until the mid-twentieth century, physician liability in the United States was limited to cases in which the doctor and patient had an established professional relationship. In the 1970s, courts and legislatures began carving out exceptions when patients posed an imminent threat to identifiable third parties. Recently, a series of cases involving circumstances such as curbside consultation, threats of violence, and automotive accidents have led some state courts to abandon the requirement of a preexisting physician-patient relationship. Instead, the courts now focus on whether foreseeable reliance is present. While these developments may significantly impact clinical practice, the connections between these cases have gone largely overlooked by both the medical and bioethics communities. This essay aims to highlight these parallel developments and to suggest that this evolution reflects a broader trend with implications far beyond the individual cases themselves.