commercial standards, prevailing in the area in which the person is located, with respect to the business in which the person is engaged. Under California case law, the chief element in determining whether a defendant owes a duty or an obligation to a plaintiff is the foreseeability of the risk. See, e..g, Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197 (1992). In this case, the question is whether LBNB could reasonably foresee that the payee of the checks would suffer a loss if LBNB accepted the checks for deposit with missing indorsements. The court finds that it is reasonably foreseeable that the acceptance for deposit of a check with a missing indorsement will cause harm to the payee. Cf. Joffe, 141 Cal.App.3d 541, 190 Cal.Rptr. 443 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The reasonable commercial standards for banks
holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties holding that drawer of check is liable only for the amount originally stated by drawer on check even though the drawers negligence facilitated the wrongful alteration of the amount on the check and the payment of a larger amount to the payee holding that it was sufficiently foreseeable that the drawer of a check that was otherwise regular but had some unusual features would be harmed by a depositary banks acceptance of the check with a missing indorsement and permitting the drawer to sue the bank for negligence recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank