Walker, a pedestrian, started north across the street in a clearly marked north-south crosswalk with the green traffic light in her favor. Walker was in a hurry, and before reaching the north curb on the street, she cut to her left diagonally across the street to the east-west crosswalk and started across it. Just after she reached the east-west crosswalk, the traffic light turned green in her favor. She had proceeded about five steps farther across the street to the west in the crosswalk when she was struck by a car approaching from her right that she thought would stop but did not. The car was driven by Driver, 81 years of age, who failed to stop his car after seeing that the traffic light was red against him. Walker had a bone disease, resulting in very brittle bones, that is prevalent in only 0.02 percent of the population. As a result of the impact Walker suffered a broken leg and the destruction of her family heirloom, a Picasso original painting that she was taking to her bank for safekeeping. The painting had been purchased by Walker's grandmother for $750 but was valued at $500,000 at the time of the accident. Walker has filed suit against Driver. Driver's attorney has alleged that Walker violated a state statute requiring that pedestrians stay in crosswalks, and that if Walker had not violated the statute she would have had to walk 25 feet more to reach the impact point and therefore would not have been at a place where she could have been hit by Driver. Walker's attorney ascertains that there is a statute as alleged by Driver, that his measurements are correct, that there is a state statute requiring observance of traffic lights, and that Driver's license expired two years prior to the collision"If Walker establishes liability on the part of Driver for her physical injuries, should Walker's recovery include damages for a broken leg?
No, since only 0.02 percent of the population have bones as brittle as Walker's.  No, unless a person of ordinary health would probably have suffered a broken leg from the impact.  Yes, because Driver could foresee that there would be unforeseeable consequences of the impact.  Yes, even though the extent of the injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the impact