Someone wasn’t paying attention in tort class. But then again, Cardozo and Andrews’s views in Palsgraf compete not only with each other, but hundreds of cases since including the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Gibson v. Kasey.

Perez tripped and fell over a case of water at the end of an aisle. She admitted if she would have looked down, she would have seen it. The court of appeals affirms summary judgment by focusing on “duty.” The court holds that whether a duty exists depends on a relationship and the presence of “an unreasonable risk of harm.” In determining duty, the court determines the legal relationship and the “reasonableness of the circumstances as necessary in determining duty.” The court of appeals decides there is no duty because the case of water was not unreasonably dangerous.  What? Let’s assume that the trial court decided differently and held there was a duty. What would the defendant say about that? Isn’t the court of appeals doing what it says it cannot do: defining duty in terms of foreseeable risk. The concurrence has a better analysis. The issue is breach and not duty.

here is the link