Proximate Causation (and Palsgraff)

Read case : Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928)

Respond to the instructions below.

In Palsgraff, Cardozo established the concept of proximate causation to supplement actual causation in tort claims. Proximate causation applies the doctrine of foreseeability in creating a zone of danger (or liability), which the judge evaluates. Andrews, in his dissent, argued for a zone of danger but felt that juries were capable of determining the scope of the zone of danger that existed in a case. It can be argued that Cardozo’s opinion was pro-business and Andrews’ opinion was pro-plaintiff. Is this assessment of the case fair? Accurate? Does it align with your analysis of the case when you drafted a case brief on Palsgraff in week 3?

Please see the Attachment 1. This is my week 3 assignment.