In Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, the California Supreme Court laid out the principal factors the Court must weigh in determining the existence of a duty, including: (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (3) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered; (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct; (5) the policy of preventing future harm; (6) the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach; (7) the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. (Id. at p. 113) Rowland v. Christian (1968) set forth the major factors in determining the scope of a person's legal duty: "The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved." (Id. at pp. 112-113.)