California court’s analysis. Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., while recognizing a duty under certain circumstances, stressed that, under New Jersey law, the “foreseeability of harm weighs in [the duty] analysis as a crucial element in determining whether imposition of a duty on an alleged tortfeasor is appropriate.” 186 N.J. 394, 895 A.2d 1143, 1148 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). In Pennsylvania, foreseeability is only one of five distinct factors that this court must consider. See Al-thaus, 756 A.2d at 1168-69. F. Weighing the Althaus Factors The Court concludes that the Althaus factors do not counsel in favor of imposing a duty on Defendant Boeing to Mrs. Gillen. See Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 576 Pa. 644, 841 A.2d 1000, 1008-09 (2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Wyeth, 85 A.3d at 454; Seebold, 57
holding a duty will be found to exist where the balance of these factors weighs in favor of placing such a burden on a defendant 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 holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality recognizing such balance of interests