equipoise in this case. C. The Nature of the Risk Imposed and Foreseeability of the Harm Incurred “[D]uty arises only when one engages in conduct which foreseeably creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others.” Manzek, 888 A.2d at 747. The Court notes that with the benefit of hindsight, an argument can be made that it was foreseeable that those exposed to asbestos on Defendant’s premises would later expose those they came in contact with at home. This, however, is not the test under Pennsylvania law as the Court must look t n, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prioritized factors other than foreseeability in noting that a motorist injured by a physician’s patient with bad vision was “simply not a foreseeable victim that this court will recognize.” 557 Pa. 340, 733 A.2d 623, 630 (1999) (<HOLDING>). In doing so, the court refused to “stretch
holding a physician plaintiff did not have a property interest in his clinical access privileges recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance holding physician not liable for injuries sustained by a third party when physician did not notify penndot of his patients poor vision holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician