The New Jersey Supreme Court has long held that the existence of a duty of care is a question of law, to be determined by the court based upon not merely foreseeability of injury but fairness. The object is to determine an intelligible general rule of conduct that will discourage the creation of unreasonable risks of harm in the future. In reiterating those general principles, the court recently added a note of caution in Desir v. Vertus. Writing for the majority, Justice Helen Hoens warned:
"This point bears repeating here because the function of the common law is not to achieve a result in a particular case, but to establish generally applicable rules to govern societal behaviors. Craft a rule that is inherently fact-specific and we risk creating an outcome that reaches only the particular circumstances and parties before the Court today; create a broadly worded duty and we run the risk of unintentionally imposing liability in situations beyond the parameters we now face."
