Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; foreseeability of harm; harm to rescuers; liability for harm occurring in an unexpected way.
Facts: While driving his car, Chapman negligently collided into the rear of another vehicle that had slowed down to turn. Chapman was flung from his vehicle onto the road. A passing doctor, Cherry, stopped to give Chapman help. Another driver, Hearse, then collided with Cherry, killing him. Hearse was ordered to pay damages to Cherry's surviving family. A further question arose: was Chapman also liable in Negligence for the death of Cherry? This depended on whether Chapman owed a duty of care to Cherry, and this in turn depended on whether, in the circumstances, the harm to Cherry was foreseeable by Chapman as a consequence of his careless acts.
Issue: Was the particular sequence of events that occurred coincidental, so that what happened to Cherry was not reasonably foreseeable?
Decision: The court found (at [7]) that "[I]t was reasonably foreseeable that subsequent injury by passing traffic to those rendering aid after a collision on the highway was by no means unlikely".
Reason: The court said at ([6]):
"[I]n order to establish the prior existence of a duty of care...it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the precise manner in which his injuries were sustained was reasonably foreseeable; it is sufficient if it appears that injury to a class of persons of which he was one might reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence. ...[I]t would be quite artificial to make responsibility depend upon ... the capacity of a reasonable man... to foresee the precise events leading to the damage complained of."