In the Palsgraf case, foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was:
A) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall?
B) Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an
explosion?
C) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be
carrying explosive fireworks?
D) Was it foreseeable to the railroad employee helping the passenger onto the train that
doing so might lead to injury to Ms. Palsgraf or another bystander?
E) Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and
injure someone?
D
You might also like to view...
A brand ________ is a translation of the brand mantra that attempts to creatively engage consumers and others external to the company
A) vision B) extension C) architecture D) slogan E) alliance
The doctrine of proximate cause:
A) forces the insurer to pay for all claims arising out of an unbroken sequence of events if any one of the subsequent perils following the original excluded peril was covered B) forces the insurer to pay for all claims arising out of an unbroken sequence of events if the original insured peril was covered C) forces the insurer to pay for the loss when the proximate cause of the event is the insured's fault D) divides any loss payment among parties proximately affected by the loss