Why does negligence law focus on unreasonable risks instead of requiring people to eliminate all risks?

In the context of tort law, the doctrine of negligence focuses on unreasonable risks rather than the elimination of all risk because human activity inherently involves some level of danger that society accepts as a trade-off for progress and daily function.1

Requiring the total elimination of all risk would be impractical and would stifle essential societal activities, such as industrial growth or transportation. Instead, the law establishes a standard of behavior based on what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would do in a given situation. This standard is measured by the seriousness of the potential consequences; for instance, the law demands a higher level of precaution from those handling dangerous materials like nitroglycerin than from those using common household items.1

By targeting only "unreasonable" risks, the legal system balances the need to protect individuals from harm with the necessity of maintaining personal and economic freedom. This approach acknowledges that while some accidents are statistically inevitable, the law serves to deter conduct that falls below acceptable safety standards.12