Well, there are quite a few outlandish decisions out there.  I wonder what the Scandinavians, or the English, for that matter, would think of this case:  A bunch of robbers rob a store.  The opening of the safe triggers a silent alarm in the local police department.  The police arrive while the robbers are still there.  The robbers seize a customer as a hostage, and then kill the customer while trying to escape.  The customer’s heirs sue ... the store, for negligence in calling the police using the silent alarm.  The trial court says the plaintiffs have no case; the appellate court reverses, saying that it’s up to the jury to decide whether it was reasonable to call the police using a silent alarm.

               Or how about this one:  A woman has an affair, and moves out to live with her lover.  The husband then goes on a serial killing rampage, killing the woman’s parents, injuring the woman and the couple’s son, and killing several members of the lover’s family.  The survivors sue ... the wife, on the theory that her starting the affair, and her supposedly taunting and humiliating the husband about it, was negligent conduct that prompted the husband’s killing spree.  The trial court says the plaintiff have no case; the appellate court reverses, saying that it’s up to the jury to decide whether the woman’s conduct was negligent.  The case then settles for a six-figure amount.

               This is not to say that all or most cases are outlandish.  But some are.

               Eugene