In a successful negligence suit, the plaintiff must show that each of the following five elements was present:

(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff

(2) a breach of that duty

(3) an actual causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm

(4) proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable

(5) damages resulting from the defendant's conduct.

The key element of a Tort of Negligence that the railroad uses in their defense is proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable. Long island railroad attendants could not have foreseen the possibility of injuring Mrs. Palsgraph. Thus they did not breach any duty to her. Every person is required to stay clear from activities that may cause any injuries to others, in case of proximate cause, there has to be a natural relation between the causative factor and its effect and not if it could remotely injure a third party. In this case, injury in some form was possible. Negligent conduct resulting in injury to the plaintiff will lead to a liability if it could have been reasonably foreseen. Long island rail road definitely did not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff. There was no element of the negligence of proximate cause in this case. The rail road would be negligent if any ham was caused to the plaintiff by objects falling from a passing train on the tracks.

Hence if I were a judge in the appeals court i would reverse the case in favor of Long Island Rail road for the reasons stated