Problem
To succeed in a negligence case, a plaintiff must prove "proximate cause". A basic test which is commonly used for proving proximate cause is "foreseeability". Do you think foreseeability is a good test? That is to say, the tortfeasor had a reasonable belief that harm or injury would be a likely result from his/her actions. Isn't it enough that whatever they did caused someone harm whether it was foreseeable or not?