(finding that a rape was not a superseding cause of injury when it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant’s negligence). “[I]n satisfying the requirement of foreseeability, a plaintiff is not required to prove that the exact injury sustained by the plaintiff was foreseeable; rather, it is enough to show that the plaintiffs injuries and damages fall within a particular kind or class of injury or harm which reasonably could be expected to flow from the defendant’s negligence.” See Glover, 968 So.2d at 1278-79 (concluding that “although the specific harm of forcible rape may not have been contemplated by [defendant]” it was foreseeable because it fell within the class of acts that might occur as a result of defendant’s negligence); Canton Broiler Farms, 214 So.2d at 677 (<HOLDING>); id. (“There are other intervening causes
holding that a car accident arising out of unique and improbable facts was foreseeable because it seems clear of course that no mortal could foresee that which happened the real question is could the defendant reasonably foresee that some accident and injury would probably result from his negligence holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence holding a negligence action arising out of an allterrain vehicle accident was a personal action holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person