Employer hired Driver to operate a delivery van. Before allowing Driver to operate the van, Employer checked Driver's prior job references, required Driver to undergo a physical examination by a medical doctor, and provided Driver with extensive training in motor vehicle safety. Medic, the medical doctor who examined Driver, discovered that Driver had a sleep disorder that caused Driver to spontaneously fall asleep and that Driver had on several occasions fallen asleep while driving. Driver pleaded with Medic not to inform Employer of the sleep disorder. Medic agreed, and omitted this information from the physical examination form that he sent to Employer. Medic also sent a letter to Employer assuring Employer that Driver was "in all respects fit for employment as a delivery van operator." Employer then provided Driver with a daily delivery route and paid him a monthly salary.

While Driver was making deliveries for Employer, the van left the road and almost struck Pedestrian, who was carrying a gun. As Pedestrian jumped out of the way to avoid the van, he hit the ground, the gun went off and the bullet struck a Passenger in a car traveling in the opposite direction of the van. The Passenger suffered severe injuries as a result.

The Pedestrian fled the scene and cannot be found. Passenger filed a lawsuit for the damages as a result of the injuries sustained from the gunshot against Driver. Assuming there was a duty, breach of duty, and damages, who is likely to prevail in that suit on the issue of causation in a jurisdiction following the rule and reasoning of the court in In re Polemis?