Learn the rule and the rest of the story in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, a torts case read by law students around the world. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://eepurl.com/cBOaBv Facebook: https://facebook.com/LearnLawBetter Website: https://LearnLawBetter.com/ Today I am going to help you understand Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad. Cardozo’s majority opinion determined that the railroad owed no duty of care to Helen Palsgraf because she was not within the range of apprehension. In other words, she was not a foreseeable plaintiff and foreseeable plaintiffs are determined under the duty element, not the proximate cause element.