Read the facts and the two cases and answer the questions that follow.

Facts

Ms$.$ Jones was waiting to get off the commuter train in the train's vestibule. The commuter train pulled into the station and Ms$.$ Jones descended

the stairs to disembark from the train. The conductor exited the train first to watch the passengers exit the train and then signal to close the

doors for the train to start rolling. Ms$.$ Jones was carrying her briefcase, which had a long strap. As Ms$.$ Jones exited the train, the briefcase

strap was behind her. The train doors shut with Ms$.$ Jones on the platform but with the briefcase strap still inside the door. The train dragged

Ms$.$ Jones about ten feet and she suffered a broken shoulder. The issue you have to consider is whether the conductor's negligence by signaling

for the train to start was the proximate cause of Ms$.$ Jones broken shoulder. The issue that you should focus your case synthesis on is whether

the conductor's failure to see that Ms$.$ Jones's briefcase strap was inside the door as he signaled for the train to start moving is the proximate

cause of her broken shoulder.

Smith v$.$ Atlantic City Railroad, $12$ Nowhere $2$d $5(2014)$

Mr$.$ John Smith was injured on the Atlantic City Railroad when the train lurched with great violence as it rounded a curve on the track. The

train was overcrowded. Smith was injured without fault on his part. The motorman drove the overcrowded car too fast around the curve, so as

to cause it to give a severe lurch. Where a passenger train is overcrowded and the employees operating the train know of such condition, it is

their duty to exercise additional care commensurate with the dangers. The motorman knew of the overcrowded conditions and failed to

exercise additional care when rounding the curve. Mr$.$ Smith was injured when the train lurched as it rounded the curve because he fell onto

another passenger. The motorman's failure to exercise the requisite care was the proximate cause of Mr$.$ Smith's injuries.

Blue v$.$ Boardwalk Railroad, $15$ Nowhere $2$d $9(2010)$

Mr$.$ Robert Blue was blinded by a sudden gust of steam and fell underneath the train he was in the process of boarding at the station. Mr$.$ Blue's

arm was severed by the train as it started to leave the station. Regular inspection of couplings is a required duty of conductors. Failure to

inspect the couplings for leaks is a negligent act on the part of the defendant. The railroad's allowing steam to escape was the proximate cause

of Mr$.$ Blue's injury, since a man of ordinary prudence could have foreseen that escaping steam would result from leaks in the uninspected

couplings. The consequence of the escaping steam, due to the railroad's failure to inspect the couplings, resulted in a foreseeable injury to a

passenger or person waiting on the platform.

a$.$Brief the cases to extract the holdings.

b$.$What are the similarities and differences between the Blue case and the Smith case?

c$.$How do the facts differ?

d$.$How do the holdings differ?

e$.$What do the cases have in common?

f$.$Formulate a statement of law that incorporates the holdings from the Smith case and the Blue case.