How does the minority rule regarding foreseeability differ from the majority rule?

The minority rule regarding foreseeability differs from the majority rule primarily in its approach to determining proximate cause. While the majority rule typically requires that harm be of a foreseeable type—meaning that a reasonable person could predict the general category of harm that would result from their actions—the minority rule takes a broader view. It holds that liability may extend to all consequences that directly flow from a defendant's conduct, regardless of whether those specific consequences were foreseeable at the time.

This means that under the minority rule, a defendant could be liable for various consequences stemming from their actions, even if those consequences were not specifically anticipated. For example, if a person engages in negligent behavior that leads to a chain of events causing unexpected harm, the minority rule may still hold them responsible for the final injury.

In contrast, the other options suggest limitations or requirements that are not characteristic of the minority approach. For instance, requiring proof of a specific injury or limiting liability to physical injuries does not align with the minority rule's broader understanding of causation and its ramifications. Also, the mention of showing the extent of harm being foreseeable reflects the majority rule's focus on foreseeability when determining the scope of liability, which is not a requirement of the minority stance. Thus, the correct choice