Which tests determine if a party owes a duty of care?

The correct answer pertains to the established legal tests that determine whether a party owes a duty of care to another party. In the context of tort law, particularly negligence, the three primary criteria are reasonably foreseeable harm, sufficient proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Firstly, the concept of reasonably foreseeable harm requires that the harm must be predictable to a reasonable person that it could occur due to the actions or inactions of the party in question. This ensures that individuals can foresee the potential consequences of their conduct.

Secondly, sufficient proximity refers to the closeness or direct relationship between the parties involved. A duty of care typically exists between parties who are in a close enough relationship that one party's actions directly affect the other's well-being.

Lastly, the notion of fair, just, and reasonable considerations relate to broader policy implications. This test weighs societal interests and public policy when determining if imposing a duty of care is appropriate. It prevents the duty of care from being overstretched to unreasonable extents, thus protecting individuals and organizations from limitless liability.

The other options do not adequately capture these essential tests for establishing a duty of care. Statistical analysis and public opinion do not form part of the legal reasoning in establishing duty,