Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Co.

    Transféré par

    crlstinaaa
    6K vues1 page
    The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was injured when a package containing fireworks exploded at a Long Island Railroad station. She sued the railroad for negligence, claiming guards had helped a passenger board a departing train and in doing so caused him to drop the unmarked package. The trial court and appellate court found for the plaintiff. However, the highest court reversed, holding that the railroad could not have reasonably foreseen such an injury would result from helping the passenger onto the train, so their actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm.

    Description originale:

    Famous torts case - law school brief (summary).

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was injured when a package containing fireworks exploded at a Long Island Railroad station. She sued the railroad for negligence, claiming guards had helped a passenger board a departing train and in doing so caused him to drop the unmarked package. The trial court and appellate court found for the plaintiff. However, the highest court reversed, holding that the railroad could not have reasonably foreseen such an injury would result from helping the passenger onto the train, so their actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    6K vues1 page

    Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Co.

    Transféré par

    crlstinaaa
    The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was injured when a package containing fireworks exploded at a Long Island Railroad station. She sued the railroad for negligence, claiming guards had helped a passenger board a departing train and in doing so caused him to drop the unmarked package. The trial court and appellate court found for the plaintiff. However, the highest court reversed, holding that the railroad could not have reasonably foreseen such an injury would result from helping the passenger onto the train, so their actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    Case: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Co.

    Parties: Plaintiff - Palsgraf


    Defendant - LIRR

    Procedural History: Verdict for plaintiff in trial court. Defendant appeals,


    verdict for plaintiff affirms. Defendant appeals to this affirmation of the
    appellant court.

    Facts: Palsgraf was standing on the platform of LIRR, waiting for a train.
    Another train came into the station and a man was trying to catch it. LIRR guards
    helped the man onto that train, as it was departing, and in the process, lead to
    the man dropping a package on the railroad tracks. The package did not show any
    sign of its contents, but happened to contain fireworks, which went off, leading
    to injury of the plaintiff at the other end of the platform.

    Issue: Is LIRR liable for Palgraf's injuries, when committing a negligent act
    (of pushing passenger onto car), but having no foreseeable reason to believe there
    were fireworks in the package, and that they would explode causing injury to the
    plaintiff?

    Holding: The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and dismissed the
    complaint.
    Upon final determination, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the
    passenger failed to prove that the railroad's alleged negligence proximately
    caused her injuries.

    Reasoning:
    Essentially, the court held that under the foreseeability test, it was not
    reasonable to hold that the railroad's alleged negligence was the cause of the
    passenger's injuries. Rather, it was the explosion that was the proximate cause,
    and the railroad could not have reasonably expected such a disaster.

    Notes:
    What is the Cardozo uses to determine if RR is liable? Foreseeability -
    If a reasonable person would foresee no harm to anyone as a result of his actions
    we do not reach the proximate cause issue. Duty of care, and negligence.

    What is the test that Andrews (dissent) would use instead? Direct Cause test (he
    called it proximate cause, but this now means something else) - a person who is
    negligent to any class of persons is negligent to everyone who is in fact injured.
    Not a matter of foreseeability alone.

    Restatement (3rd) of torts: Liab. Physical Harfm, 32

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi