How have courts determined foreseeability in motor vehicle accidents?

And similarly, in the case of Thomas v. Scott [1976] N.J. No. 63 the plaintiff says foreseeability was an issue determined by the trial judge where a plaintiff had alleged that a rock had flown from the rear wheels of the defendant’s truck toward his vehicle smashing the windshield and striking him in the chest. The defendant had acknowledged to a police officer that a large rock was jammed between the dual wheels and tires of the rear of his vehicle and that on the previous day he had tried to remove it without success. At trial he gave evidence that he had succeeded in removing the rock. This explanation was rejected by the trial judge. It was the defendant driver’s knowledge of the presence of the rock that led to a finding that he ought to have foreseen that the rock constituted a hazard to others.