“[t]he inquiry [whether a duty of care exists] involves a weighing of the relationship of the parties, the nature of the risk, and the public interest in the proposed solution.” Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark, 38 N.J. 578, 583, 186 A.2d 291 (1962). We have also made clear that, [i]n most eases, the justice of imposing such a duty [of care] is so clear that the cause of action in negligence is assumed to exist simply on the basis of the actor’s creation of an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm resulting in injury. In fact, however, more is needed, “more” being the value judgment, based on an analysis of public policy, that the actor owed the injured party a duty of reasonable care. [Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 544, 476 A.2d 1219 (1984) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied) (<HOLDING>).] It is beyond question that “[a] cause of
holding that provisions in a subcontract incorporating a prime contract for a limited purpose are limited only to those that are applicable holding that the tort threshold requirement njsa 39670n is not applicable if the injury to a qualified claimant is caused by a hit and run motorist holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration holding limited by njsa 2a1557 holding a writ was appropriate when the authorization was not limited as to time and not limited to specific healthcare providers