Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Does it serve the purposes of negligence to extend duty to just the zone of danger or beyond to the world at large in your opinion?

Then try and explain the difference in the majority and dissent in this case.

State the meaning of the two views and the practical differences.

Can you explain how the majority view in Palsgraf has limited liability?

Do you think this is good or bad for society overall? Why?