In Resnick v$.$ AvMed, Inc., the defendants argue that too much time had passed from the negligent

act and the harm. The facts fit the harm within the risk rule: the plaintiff$$s harm $($the identity

being stolen$)$ is a reasonably foreseeable result of defendant$$s act $($allowing unencrypted laptops

with personal information on them to be stolen$).$

o Did the passage of a year between the stolen laptops and identity theft mean that the

danger created by AvMed$$s negligence had subsided? Y$/$N