Palsgraf v Long Island R.Co.-248 N.Y.339 (Court of Appeals of New York 1928) 1. How far was the platform away from the explosion? how many feet? was this a significant fact in the court's decision, why or why not? 2. What does this mean "Negligence, like risk, is thus a term of relation "? 3. Mrs. Palsgraf had purchased a ticket from the defendant. Why do you suppose this was not a sufficient "relation" for Judge Cardozo? What sort of a relation was he thinking about here? 4. What does it mean "The Supreme Court explained that the element of duty raises the question whether the defendant's conduct foreseeably created a "zone of risk" (i.e., a general threat of harm to others). (This requirement of reasonable, general foresight is the core of the duty element, and is a question of law for the court, even though influenced by the facts of the case). " 5. What is "zone of risk", and how does it effect "proximate cause" and "foreseeability"? 6. The majority held that defendant owed no duty to protect because she was an "unforeseeable plaintiff" (i.e out of the "zone of risk"). the dissent argued that there was a "duty owed to plaintiff", but argued that the jury should be allowed to determine if defendant's conduct was "Proximate cause" of plaintiff's injury. Justice Andrews said that "because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point" - Explain the meaning of Justice Andrews statment. 7. Draw a circle in your mind, and label that as "zone of risk", and then place the plaintiff outside of the circle, and the injury occurring there. Explain why no liability in this case for plaintiff's injury