Tesar v Anderson. What makes the concept of duty "problematic," according to Court? The court references Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 102 (N.Y. 1928), the leading case on the concept of duty (videos about Palsgraf are in the materials). What relevance does Palsgraf have in this case? See, particularly, the bottom of Page 3 of the pdf (Page 6 of the decision). Historically, which definition of duty (as defined by Palsgraf) does Wisconsin follow (Cardozo's majority view or Andrews' dissent view)? Provide the quote where this is mentioned. By the way (as this is relevant to the case), do Wisconsin and Illinois follow the same view? What was the holding of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Four in this case? Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Four? Why