What duty of care was owed to Mrs. Palsgraf prior to her injuries? What was the legal status of Mrs. Palsgraf as she waited for her train (trespasser, licensee, or invitee)? Why is the legal status of Mrs. Palsgraf important to analyze? Was Mrs. Palsgraf a foreseeable plantiff of the railroad under the facts and circumstances of this case? Going beyond the case itself, notice the date of this case. These events took place in the 1920s, about 30 years before widespread commercial civilian jet or interstate highway travel. The railroads were the backbone of the U.S. transportation industry during this time in history. The courts tended to favor railroads in civil cases in the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s during the Great Depression, as the country needed the railroads to keep businesses going during difficult economic times. Sometimes courts decide cases based on ”public policy,” what the courts believe is correct for the nation. The country just could not afford for the railroads to lose a lot of these personal injury cases during that era. So, courts tended to rule in favor of them. How did the predisposition of the courts to favor the railroads during the 1920s and 1930s era work against Mrs. Palsgraf’s case?