Assume that your business partner, Greg Adams, was at the train station when a train, traveling at more than 70 mph, hit eighteen-year-old Hector Javier, who was running across the tracks. The impact killed Javier and flung parts of his body about 100 feet into the air. Some of them landed on Greg and knocked him to the ground. As a result, he hurt his shoulder and broke his leg and wrist. He has not been able to work and has hired an attorney to file a negligence lawsuit against Javier's estate. (The attorney believes that Greg cannot successfully sue Amtrak because of a lack of proximate causeit was not reasonably foreseeable that Javier would run across the tracks and his body parts would cause injuries to others.)

1. Did Javier had a duty to Greg and whether his decision to run in front of the train was a breach of that duty because he was in the zone of danger.
2. Consider proximate cause: Was it reasonably foreseeable that a train accident could send Javier's body parts into crowds of waiting passengers?
3. Discuss whether it is ethical to sue the dead man's estate over flying body parts. Further, what impact might the case and the publicity surrounding it have on you and your partner's business reputation?

Write short brief of the negligence issues in this case

• Issue: What tort will the plaintiff use as the basis of the lawsuit?
• Rule of Law: Give the definition of this tort and how one becomes liable for this tort?
• Applying the Rule of Law: Use the facts and law to determine whether the defendant is liable for this tort?
• Conclusion: Based on the arguments you have given above, how would the court logically rule in this case?