Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. The case reading begins by explaining that a woman named Helen Palsgraf was awaiting a train on a station platform, when all of a sudden she noticed a man running toward a train that was leaving the station. The man who was attempting to board the train had a package in his hand. As the man leaped onto the train, a railroad guard on the train helped pull him aboard, while another railroad guard on the platform helped push him aboard. While all of this was occurring, the man happened to drop his package onto the railroad tracks, which then proceeded to explode. The explosion on the tracks caused scales on the platform to fall directly on Helen Palsgraf, causing physical injuries. There were no prior warnings that there were fireworks enclosed in the package. Palsgraf (the plaintiff) then decided to sue Long Island Railroad Company (the defendant) due to negligence. While the jury and the appellate court found that the railroad guards had been negligent, the railroad company appealed to New York’s highest state court (Clarkson, Miller, Cross 2014) In my opinion, the major question proposed in this case is “what constitutes negligence?”. Although Palsgraf claimed that the railroad guards were the proximate cause of her injuries, one may see this case differently. One may argue that this statement is incorrect because the incident and injuries sustained were unforeseeable, which would mean that Long Island Railroad Company was not liable. After researching the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad case, I found that in the end, the court discovered that the railroad company was not liable for Palsgraf’s injuries. The court was certain that the railroad guards owed the duty of care to the man attempting to jump on the moving train. There was a high possibility that the man could be injured, which made it reasonably