Palsgraf v long island railroad co

Edit Cardozo, in the majority, gives consideration to the fact that the workers had no way of knowing the contents of the parcel, and even then they could not reasonably have foreseen this outcome.

Palsgraf v long island railroad co

Dozens of people are shuffling about to get to work and countless other places. A whistle blows, an engine begins to gather steam, and the nearest train starts to crawl down the tracks away from the station.

When out of nowhere, a man darts out of a throng of people and races towards the departing locomotive. Onlookers soon realize that he probably will not make it in time. So, two guards-one on the train and one on the platform-rush to his aid. With all their might, they grab him and together try to launch him up onto the vehicle.

However, as it became dislodged in the heat of the tussle none would fail to ignore it any longer because its fall onto the train tracks below makes such a tremendous explosion. In fact, what the man was carrying was a bundle of fireworks merely 15 inches long.

It was shaken to the core, so shaken actually that it forced scales off their resting place onto a one Mrs. Helen Palsgraf on the side of the station opposite the explosion.

Palsgraf sued except instead of suing the young man with an appetite for danger, she sued the railroad. Believe it or not, at the end of the day, she was actually obligated to pay the railroad compensation but how the story got to that point first involves digressing into one of the most famous cases in history.

Palsgraf, needed to set out to obtain relief. She stated a claim of negligence against the railroad employees and thus the railroad as their employers.

Palsgraf v long island railroad co

She never stated that the railroad employees intentionally tried to hurt her. In her negligence claim, then, she had to prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. The defendant must owe the plaintiff some duty. This can arise from statute or whether reasonable believe a jury in the end would deduct that a duty existed in a set of circumstances to act in a particular way.

For negligence to occur, the defendant must have breached that duty or gone against what reasonable people would have done under the circumstances. Further, that breach must have actually and reasonably caused damages to the plaintiff.

The interplay of these four factors largely determined the outcome of this case. The man who wrote the majority decision in Palsgraf, Benjamin Cardoza see also: Yet, only a few years later, Cardoza would go on to the Supreme Court and play a major role in the judiciary for most of the s.

As written by him, the two major issues that presented themselves in this case were the following: While the plaintiffs and the dissent tried to skip ahead to other parts of negligence such as causation and damagesCardoza stuck to a methodical approach of the situation and stated before any other issue, a duty of care to the plaintiff must be found.

While it might easily be argued that the employees had a duty and were negligent to the man and his package, this does not transfer to Mrs. If there was a duty of care leads to the questions of how it should be drawn and that will be discussed now.

Writing for the majority, Cardoza stated that people should be responsible for their acts-lawful or otherwise- to the extent that they could reasonably portend danger and only to that extent.

Of course, the situation here was complicated by the fact that they employees were ostensibly doing a lawful and good act: Cardoza states that this does not transform into a tort because the good act has some removed consequence outside the bounds of foresight.

Thus, this case has largely been read to state that people owe a duty of care to others for the consequences that might reasonably be foreseen from it. It is a reasonable and causal determination. Using the language of the majority, the duty of care can be described in the following manner: One exception includes unexpected consequences.

If you do something wrongful but do not perceive the outcome you are still liable.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

An example of this is if you throw an object into a crowded environment trying to hit someone and it actually hits someone else, you are still liable. Another exception includes things that are by their nature dangerous such as shooting or handling toxic materials.

Public policy and other forces impose a duty of care to even those who may remotely come in contact with these actions and Cardoza suggests that in this way the law has made people conducting these activities quasi-insurers to the surrounding public.

The author of the dissent in Palsgraf was also a legal titan, Justice William Andrews. In his dissent, Andrews agreed that people owe a duty to avoid acts that might unreasonably put others in danger. However, instead of focusing on the duty prong of negligence, he focused on causation.The explosion caused weight scales to fall on the other end of the platform.

These scales hit Palsgraf, causing injury. She sued Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR). Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad: Understanding Scope of Liability.

by Jonathan Rosenfeld. The scene is a loud and bustling railroad station on East Long Island almost one hundred years ago. Dozens of people are shuffling about to get to work and countless other places. Palsgraf greatly influenced the future of American common law on 5/5.

A man was getting on to a moving train owned by the Long Island Railroad Company. Seeming unsteady, two workers of the company tried to assist him onto the train and accidentally knocked his parcel out of his hands.

The parcel contained fireworks wrapped in newspaper which went off when they hit Year: In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to this case, Phillip would: lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip, who was far away.

Palsgraf v long island railroad co

v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24, Decided May 29, NY CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is.

R.R. Co. [*] OPINION OF THE COURT. CARDOZO, Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co. Search.

Table of Contents. Torts Keyed to Dobbs. Add to Library. Law Dictionary.

Buy Law School for Everyone: Read 4 Prime Video Reviews - nationwidesecretarial.com His symptoms had no apparent physical causes.. She is the cause of all their problems.. The medicine was prescribed without good cause.. Their marriage was a cause for celebration.. I can support a cause that means something to me.. I'm willing to donate money as long as it's for a good cause. A man was getting on to a moving train owned by the Long Island Railroad Company. Seeming unsteady, two workers of the company tried to assist him onto the train and accidentally knocked his parcel out of his hands. The parcel contained fireworks wrapped in newspaper which went off when they hit Year:

CASE BRIEFS. Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. Search. The Plaintiff was standing on a railroad platform purchasing a ticket, when a train stopped and two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men nearly.

Palsgraf v Long_Is_RR