Help with the following hypo would be greatly appreciated . . . answers that focus on assigning duty via the doctrine of foreseeability are especially welcome.
Florence is overjoyed at the news that she has gained a place at the Magic Roundabout College of Law and decides to celebrate. She buys a bottle of champagne in a liquor store which stands by a road. Once back outside the store, Florence shakes the bottle vigorously for several minutes in the manner of a racing driver. The cork flies out and hits the windshield of a car which happens to be passing at the time. The glass shatters and Dougal, the driver, is killed almost instantly as pieces of glass pierce his head. (It is later discovered at the autopsy that Dougal had a congenital weakness in his skull which made him peculiarly vulnerable if struck on the head.) Dougal’s car veers across the road and onto the sidewalk on the opposite side from Florence, where it hits Zebedee, who is killed instantly. The car carries on into a store owned by Dylan. Luckily no-one inside is injured but the store is effectively destroyed. Zebedee’s wife, Ermintrude, saw the whole incident and now suffers from post-traumatic shock.
Explain what the legal position is of each of the parties involved. Are you motivated to achieve a particular result irrespective of the law? If so, why? Is such motivation relevant and/or permissible?