Multiple Choice
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 the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks?
C) Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone?
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 Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion?
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q30: Intent is required for a product disparagement
Q31: The best statement of the test applied
Q33: Mary,a 68-year-old widow,hired an electrician to make
Q34: In all defamation of character cases,the plaintiff
Q36: A reporter appears on television and declares
Q37: Persons who engage in abnormally dangerous activities
Q38: Sam is a business executive who flies
Q39: Cindy was riding her bicycle on a
Q40: Injuries suffered as a result of a
Q127: Good Samaritan laws do not generally protect