Users of motor vehicles on public roads owe a duty to drive with care to allpersons who could foreseeablybe injured. The plaintiff had notbeensufficiently closeto the area of potential danger and thus the motor cyclisthad not owed her a duty of care. Law:NegligenceDuty of careForseeability of plaintiff: To be a “foreseeableplaintiff”, the plaintiff must not“piggy backon a duty of care owed to another personRussell v McCabe Facts:An injured volunteer fire fighterrecovered against the person whosenegligence caused the firein the first place.Held:Rescue cases: The defendant’s negligence placed a person in peril andsomeone else tries to rescue that person. The courts did not make muchinquiryas to whether the rescuers are within the circle of foreseeability.Law:NegligenceDuty of careForseeability of plaintiff: Independent dutiesmay be owed to more than oneperson. Meah v Mccreamer Facts:D negligently crashedhis car and caused brain damageto his passenger,who becomes so deranged that some months later he sets fireto P’s house.Held:D owes no duty of care to P because P was so far removedin timefrom thenegligent conduct to be reasonably foreseeable.