In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by ...

[PhilipSeeMore]

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:
 a. was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, so could be liable for her injury
  b. was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but the cause of the accident was a careless passenger, not the railroad, so it was relieved of liability by intervening conduct
  c. was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but the explosion was not the proximate cause of the accident, so there was no liability
  d. was negligent for exposing Palsgraf to danger, but its actions were not a substantial factor in what caused the accident, so there was no liability
  e. was not liable because of a lack of proximate cause

Question 2

While Mrs. O'Leary may have been negligent in leaving an oil lamp in the barn for her cow to kick over, she would not be held liable for the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 because the chain of events from the cow kicking the lantern to the destruction of the city was not:
 a. foreseeable b. indisputable c. unavoidable
  d. all of the specific choices
  e. none of the specific choices

[raenoj]

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

a

[PhilipSeeMore]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[CAPTAINAMERICA]

YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review