What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant was responsible for causing the death of a pedestrian by careless driving?

" 'A trial court has a sua sponte duty to "instruct on general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case[.] " ' " (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 586.) "A party may not argue on appeal that an instruction correct in law was too general or incomplete, and thus needed clarification, without first requesting such clarification at trial." (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503.)

A "defendant is liable for homicide unless a superseding intervening act has broken the chain of causation. The intervening act must be unforeseeable and extraordinary, and a defendant remains liable if he might reasonably have contemplated the possible consequence or should have foreseen the possibility of harm of the kind that could result from his act." (People v. Moncada (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1133; People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 871 (Cervantes) [independent means "unforeseeable" and "extraordinary"].)