of duty and foreseeability to broaden a physician’s duty to a patient and hold a physician liable to the public at large within the factual scenario of this case. This is especially true where, as here, [the ophthalmologist] did not cause or aggravate a medical condition that affected the patient’s driving and the patient was necessarily aware of her medical condition. Appellant’s decedent is simply not a foreseeable victim that this court will recognize. We will not stretch foreseeability beyond the point of recognition for to do so will be to make liability endless. To allow liability in this case would be to make physicians absolutely liable for the various acts of their pa tients. This we will not countenance .... Id.; accord Hospodar v. Schick, 885 A.2d 986, 990 (Pa.Super.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in Estate of Witthoeft, the
holding that an insurance company had to indemnify defendant driver pursuant to policy because shooting that caused accident was determined to be accidental holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted holding that a neurologist was not liable to the victims of an accident caused by a patients epileptic seizure holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property