❌ B: it's about initial liability, not causality of subsequent injuries. ❌ D: "seeing" is too specific. "Witnessing" (which she did) would be better. ✅ C: A reasonable-sounding rule related to causality and foreseeability in negligence. 2️⃣ A, if olden-times people expected wives to auto-swoon.
Actually, hang on, @openargs.bsky.social, if she can recover damages for emotional distress, where does the injured foot come into that? Is it causally linked to the shock? Or did the question not actually specify her foot as relevant to the claim?
@openargs.bsky.social , it wasn't an LLM. I just had to trim it down massively to fit my (incorrect) rationale. I'm Australian, where there aren't the same rules regarding infliction of emotional distress, if I remember my torts class correctly.