PLEASE HELP ME FOR BRAINLIEST ANSWER, THIS IS CONCERNING PROXIMATE CAUSE. The Dissent argues that the line between causation in fact and foreseeable causation is arbitrary. Remember that the railroad employee had no reason to know that the package contained explosives. So, who does he owe a duty to? On the other hand, at what point should a person stop being responsible for all the downstream consequences of his actions? For example, if you drop a lit match at the gas station and the explosion causes the elderly man on the next block to have a heart attack. Your act directly caused his injury, but should you be responsible? What about if you left your car in neutral at the top of the hill and it rolled down and killed a child? What if the child's mother, already depressed, begins taking opioids and robs her neighbor's house to get money to pay for her drugs? Are you responsible for that? At what point should the line be drawn? Discuss fully.

1) No one. The railroad employee owes duty to no one but GOD.  (2) Yes this man is responsible for his actions, but not the heart attack. (3)No. The mother should've mourned and found Jesus if that was her choice. There was no need to start taking drugs. She could've also adopted. But yes, because the woman should've put her car in park, not neutral

Explanation:

(1) No the railroad employee does not owe his duty to anyone but God, but especially in this situation, maybe he was told not to look in the box. So he's not going to look in the box for the sake of losing his job.

(2) No because, everyone knows that you shouldn't have any flammable content in a gas station. I mean that is just stupid. But no because this elderly man, could've already had a heart attack coming. The explosion might've just jump started it. I mean he's elderly.

(3) Honestly, it's a no and a yes like the previous question. She should've put her car in park. No, because the kid's mom didn't need to start drugging herself. She could've read the bible, or found Jesus, or she could've adopted. I mean, for goshness sakes, she could've tried all 3. There is no need to drug urself and then end up dead, or end up not being able to adopt, or having a hard time finding a job, cause u take drugs!

Hope this helps (:

it is about the use of non animal tested cosmetics.

c is a symbol. when bernice gets her hair cut, it is the authors way of showing the affects and demands of pier pressure and the over-all attitudes of people at the time.