What is the test for foreseeability of a driver who grabs the steering wheel and drives into a ditch?

Eerily similar to this case is the case of Lauritzen v. Barstead, Kirby J. held: I find that the action of the defendant in grabbing the steering-wheel was the cause of the right rear-wheel running off the traveled portion of the highway; that the conduct of the defendant in doing so constituted negligence; that the action of the defendant in backing up the car after the plaintiff got out of it was an unsuccessful attempt by the defendant to remedy the consequences of his negligence which only served to worsen their position, necessitating the car being moved to a safer location at the bottom of the ditch; that all of the incidents following the initial negligent act of the defendant comprised efforts by both parties to extricate themselves from the desperate situation in which they had been placed by that negligent act. It is argued that the chain of events was broken by the act of the plaintiff and that he was negligent in getting out of the car after it got stuck, leaving the keys in the ignition, knowing the defendant to be in an intoxicated condition. In my view, the plaintiff, taking into consideration the situation in which he found himself, did what any reasonable person would have done under like circumstances and was not negligent in doing what he did at this time. Returning now to the facts: It was a cold night in December; blizzard conditions prevailed; it was late; the plaintiff and the defendant were traveling through sparsely settled prairie country. These were conditions which made their means of transportation vital to their safety. Traveling as they were, on a slippery highway bordered by a ditch 30 to 40 ft. deep, I am of the opinion that the defendant ought to have foreseen the dangerous consequences likely to flow from his negligent act in grabbing the steering-wheel. It does not seem to me that the decision in the “Wagon Mound” case implies that recovery of damages should be conditional upon foreseeability both of the particular harm and the precise manner or sequence of events in which it occurred. I feel, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the damages he has suffered.[40]