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) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The New York high court held that the railroad was not negligent because the harm to Palsgraf was not a foreseeable result of the railroad's actions, thus establishing the principle of foreseeability in determining negligence.

In Palsgraf V