and finding a duty, compared with those that focus on the absence of a relationship between the parties among other policy concerns and finding no duty) (applying California law); In re Asbestos Litig. (Lillian Riedel), C.A. No. 04C-07-099-ASB, 2007 WL 4571196 (Del.Super.Ct. Dec. 21, 2007), aff’d Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del.2009) (noting that "where the duty analysis focuses on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and not simply the foreseeability of injury, the courts uniformly hold that an employer/premises owner owes no duty to a member of a household injured by take home exposure to asbestos”) (applying Delaware law); In re New York City Asbestos Litig. (Holdampf v. A.C. & S., Inc.), 5 N.Y.3d 486, 806 N.Y.S.2d 146, 840 N.E.2d 115 (2005) (<HOLDING>) (applying New York law); In re Certified
recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place holding that such a duty exists recognizing in dicta that where there is a general duty it may be considered as insistent both where the actor is and the subject is  as in the case of the duty of a father to support his children and if the duty hals criminal sanetion it may be enforced in either place holding that in determining whether a duty exists a court should consider the following factors 1 the reasonable foreseeability of injury 2 the reasonable likelihood of injury 3 the magnitude of the burden that guarding against injury places on the defendant and 4 the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant emphasis added