Inc., 876 S.W.2d 179, 182-83 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1994, writ denied). Foreseeability does not require the actor to anticipate the precise manner in which an injury will occur; it only requires that (i) the injury be of such a general character as might reasonably have been anticipated, and (ii) the injured party be so situated with relation to the wrongful act that injury to him or to one similarly situated might reasonably have been foreseen. Berly, 876 S.W.2d at 183. There can be more than one proximate cause of an injury, and all persons whose negligent conduct contributed to the injury are responsible for it. See Travis, 830 S.W.2d at 98; El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 313 (Tex.1987); see also Bel-Ton Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pickle, 877 S.W.2d 789, 795 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1994) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 915 S.W.2d 480
holding that chapter 13 debt or and trustee have concurrent standing to litigate prepetition causes of action recognizing that there can be bailment of money recognizing there can be concurrent proximate causes of accident holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that the insureds own testimony which gave rise to the possibility of concurrent causation created a burden on the insured to allocate the damages between the various causes