Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

When we are not careful, when an imprudent action causes harm,  should courts hold a defendant responsible for the entire chain of events and all harm that may flow from the action?  The courts have struggled with this question since the dawning of tort law.  The doctrine of proximate cause is one line-drawing tool developed by the courts to define a circle of harm that a defendant will be responsible for, and what he will not be responsible for.  

A seminal case in this development of the proximate cause doctrine is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (New York 1928).    

Other tools serving the same end are the economic loss rule and the concept of duty.  Sometimes we have a right to cause harm, and sometimes there are limits to the type of harm or the amount of harm we will be responsible for.