Court Opinion

ID: 7505022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 04:29:59.152434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:22.691554
License: Public Domain

JONES, Justice (concurring specially).
This is a close case because ordinarily the "reasonably foreseeable" test is one for the jury. But I agree that these particular facts reduce the issue to a purely legal one which has been correctly decided by the trial court.
I am persuaded that, as a matter of law, Sly's injury, if any, was, at best, a "remote result" and not "a matter reasonably foreseeable" by South Central Bell. Zeigler v.Blount Brothers Construction Co., 364 So.2d 1163 (Ala. 1978).