1. a. Describe the differences between contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

b. If you live in a state that applies the doctrine of contributory negligence, what is its effect on a suit in

negligence?

c. If you live in a state that applies the doctrine of comparative negligence, what is its effect on a suit in

negligence?

d. Which standard do most states use? Which standard does Tennessee use?

2. Suppose Palsgraf were set in today's time.

a. Is it more or less likely that a passenger would attempt to board a vehicle of mass transportation carrying

an unmarked package containing explosives? Does that make a plaintiff's injuries resulting from such

behavior more or less foreseeable?

b. Who might become the defendant in this modern lawsuit? Does that change the "circle of foreseeability"

enough that the result might change? Would Ms. Palsgraf recover today?

3. Discuss and answer the following questions about the case:

a. Describe and discuss the two elements that must be present to prove causation under tort law.

b. Ms. Palsgraf was injured, and the jury at trial found that the railroad employees had been negligent. Why

did the appellate court dismiss Mrs. Palsgraf's complaint?

c. What test did the court use when determining causation?

d. Does this test limit or expand the concept of causation? Was Ms. Palsgraf included or excluded from the

"circle of foreseeability?"

What if the facts of Palsgraf were different?

e. What if the man carrying the package of fireworks had fallen as the guards were trying to help him board

the train and had broken his leg?

(1) If he became the plaintiff and sued the train company for his injuries, what would the outcome have

been? Would his injuries have fallen within the circle of foreseeability?

(2) Could the argument be made that he assumed the risk? What does this mean? What effect would his

assumption of the risk have on his case in negligence?