11. In an action against the defendant, can the supporting actor recover for his loss of income attributable to the accident?

D is correct. The issue in this question is economic damages of a third party without accompanying physical harm. Normally, pure economic loss (a loss that is not accompanied by physical harm to that person) may not be recovered by a third party as a matter of public policy. That is the type of harm the supporting actor is asserting in this question. This answer states this rule and is the correct answer.

A is incorrect. It is true that the defendant's negligence was the but-for cause of the supporting actor's loss because, but-for defendant's negligent driving, the show would not have been canceled and the supporting actor laid off. However, that harm is several steps down the chain of causation and, as a matter of public policy, courts do not find the proximate causation element of negligence satisfied in such circumstances.

B is incorrect. This answer choice accurately states the rule that plaintiffs generally must mitigate their damages. Failure to mitigate can reduce recovery. But, that does not alter the fact that pure economic loss may not be recovered by a third party.

C is incorrect. This answer choice is tempting, but it has two errors. The first error is that the actual defendant need not have foreseen the harm caused. It need only have been foreseeable as a general matter. Second, it is foreseeable that harming one individual could cause the victim's colleagues to suffer a loss of revenue through a decline or even elimination of work.