What is the test for sufficient proximity in a motor vehicle accident?

At para 36, Cooper v. Hobart identifies the categories in which sufficient proximity has been recognized, concluding that if a situation falls within one of these categories, or an analogous one, the proximity requirement will be met. The listed categories are the following: (i) foreseeable physical harm to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s property; (ii) foreseeable harm of nervous shock to the plaintiff; (iii) negligent misstatement; (iv) misfeasance in public office; (v) duty to warn of the risk of danger; (vi) the duty of a municipality to prospective purchasers of real estate to inspect housing developments without negligence; (vii) duty of governmental authorities who have undertaken a policy of road maintenance to execute the maintenance in a non-negligent manner; and ( viii) in certain situations, relational economic loss (related to a contract’s performance).