(a) That's wrong. It need not be foreseeable exactly how harm might be caused to the plaintiff. It is sufficient that harm of some kind is foreseeable, even if it cannot be foreseen exactly how that harm will come about, or what the exact nature of that harm will be.

Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112.

In recent times, the courts have emphasised that, although the foreseeability test is a fairly undemanding one, it is still a real requirement.