Reasonable foreseeability: Part of the test for a duty of care.
Court will ask: Was it reasonably foreseeable, to an ordinary person in the Def’s position, that carelessness of the sort alleged might cause harm of the general type complained of, to a class of people like the Pl?: eg. Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 (Dr killed by 2nd driver while attempting rescue of injured first driver.)
As above, at this stage, RF is abstract level.
High Court has indicated that more than foreseeability is needed to found a duty of care: see for example, Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562.
But RF has been recently re-emphasised by High Ct (see for eg. Tame v NSW, Annetts v Aus Stations; and Koehler v Cerebos).