In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:
A) was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, so could be liable for her injury
B) was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but the cause of the accident was a careless passenger, not the railroad, so it was relieved of liability by intervening conduct
C) was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but the explosion was not the proximate cause of the accident, so there was no liability
D) was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but its actions were not a substantial factor in what caused the accident, so there was no liability
E) was not liable because of a lack of proximate cause

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The New York high court held that the railroad was not liable for Palsgraf's injuries because there was a lack of proximate cause between the railroad's actions and the injury suffered by Palsgraf. The court found that the injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the railroad's actions, thus negating the element of negligence.

In Palsgraf V