Do you have any studies from sources that are not left wing ideologues, such as Hate America Harvard? If you do, release them. This left wing talking point propaganda has no credibility.

Supremacy Claus, your pseudo intellectual elitist view point is off base. You may be offended by the plaintiffs bar, but you are clearly incapable of comprehending what you make daily, in fact almost hourly, incoherent tirades against.
Foreseeability is not a supernatural doctrine...it is a simple recognition of the fact that actions have consequences. Even a young child who has place her hand on a hot stove can grasp this concept, unfortunately you cannot.

Perhaps your distaste for anyone who has survived 1L is b/c you did not pass the LSAT? In any event, the author of this blog provides research and articles for talking points. Your request for alternative data, rather than researching it yourself, leads me to believe you have no agenda other than to take advantage of an open forum with your conspiracy theory rantings.

John: The sun has risen in the east 1 million times without exception. Placing a hand on the hot stove hurts 100% of the time. It is misleading and unfair for you to use these examples. Their foreseeability is based on the extreme low rate of exceptions in past occurrence. It is not foreseeability but prediction based on extreme past certainty. Even planetary orbits have some uncertainty from unseen, chaotic, unpredictable, small gravitational forces from all over the place.

What is the lottery number for tonight? You have a 1 in a 1000 chance of predicting that. You will be wrong 999 times out of 1000.

Now, go to the worst intersection in the nation, and predict a car accident. That is far rarer than the correct lottery number.

What does the preponderance standard of evidence mean? It means there is a 51% chance that each element of the tort has been proven. There are 2 places where one must forecast the injury of the plaintiff. The first is in the core of duty, the foreseeability of injury to a greater than 51% certainty. If your correct prediction of accidents is 1 in 1000, the verdict for the plaintiff is unlawful and violates the procedural due process rights to a fair hearing of the defendant. The verdict in favor of a plaintiff whose injury is less than 51% predictable from past experience violates Rules of Evidence, and should be reversible error. There should not even be a trial for injuries with less than 51% past occurrences under similar circumstances. That means 99.999999% of plaintiff verdicts are unlawful.

The second place is in the absence of an unforeseen intervening cause. Any conduct contributing to the injury will also be an unforeseen intervening cause. Any chance event will as well. The doctrine of comparative negligence versus contributory negligence violates that defense. This is a biased favor to the plaintiff bar done by pro-lawyer biased lawyers on the bench and in the legislature. Commie redistributionists, take the assets of the productive to redistribute to the criminal cult enterprise, at the point of a gun.

The idea of foreseeability of rare events is supernatural. It is also Scholasticisit. Leave aside its church origin in the belief that God could predict and change the future, not man. The core of duty, foreseeability of injury, and the defense of a unforeseeable intervening cause, both violate the Establishment Clause, being supernatural, even church based.

Here is some personal advice, as well. When you make personal remarks, it shows frustration in the traverse. If you make that mistake in a tribunal, the judge will rejoinder it. The jury, not having a clue about the verdict, will grasp onto the judge's remark as a signal as to his preference. Don't make that error when it counts.

Predicting the lotto numbers is far different from a predictable outcome. The busiest intersection need not be unsafe, but for care less or reckless driving. It is foreseeable, without divine intervention or a magic eight ball, that cutting someone off, speeding, or running a stop sign will cause an accident. Your argument, though artfully written, is fundamentally flawed and benign.
Further, the fact that reckless, careless, or negligent acts may not cause injury 100% of the time is irrelevant. When they do cause injury, it is important to consider whether or not the actor did/should have known the consequences of that act.
As far as preponderance of the evidence goes: what do you propose in the alternative? If every case of injuy was as straight forward as the rising of the sun then there would never be a need for adjudication of any sort since there would be no conflict. A jury then is taught the facts and the law in order to make a sound decision based on the facts, the law, and their own experience and knowledge.
I would not go so far as to assume that my comments were made out of frustration. I do not need to be angry, frustrated, or even very interested in order to call a spade a spade.