Palsgraf v long island railroad co 1928. Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v 2019-03-01

Solved: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad lemurianembassy.com of Appeals of...

The question of liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability. We did not limit this statement to those who might be expected to be exposed to danger. Further, that breach must have actually and reasonably caused damages to the plaintiff. I may recover from a negligent railroad. Since the harm to plaintiff was not willful on the part of defendant, it had to be shown that the act of dropping a package had the apparent possibility of danger. Two men ran to catch the train as it was moving away from the station.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Summary

Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. The package, which gave no indication of its contents, contained fireworks which exploded when they hit the track. As has been said, except in cases of contributory negligence, there must be rights which are or may be affected. This last suggestion is the factor which must determine the case before us. Which initiated the domino effect leading up to her injuries. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened the plaintiff's safety, so far as appearances could warn him. A, walking on the sidewalk nearby, is killed.

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. case brief

He differentiates between a wrong, and a tort, stating: if no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least outward seeming, with reference to her did not take itself to the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong. He jumped into the train but he could not keep the balance and was about to fall when a railroad guard on the car reached forward to grab him and another man in the platform push him from behind to help him board the train. If there was a wrong to him at all, which may very well be doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his package. It will be altered by other causes also. As the passenger jumped to board the train, two railroad employees, one on the train and the other on the platform, reached for and pushed respectively him so he would not fall off it. Anns 3- Is it fair, just and reasonable for the law to impose a duty on the claimant? The proximate cause, involved as it may be with many other causes, must be, at the least, something without which the event would not happen.

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad Company Case Brief Essay

Here, by concession, there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. Even though it was already moving, two men ran to catch the train. Once ambulance service accepts call in relation to named individual - that individual is only one that can be harmed. Often though injury has occurred, no rights of him who suffers have been touched. Is the effect of cause on result not too attenuated? For negligence to occur, the defendant must have breached that duty or gone against what reasonable people would have done under the circumstances. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened the plaintiff's safety, so far as appearances could warn him. The range of reasonable apprehension is at times a question for the court, and at times, if varying inferences are possible, a question for the jury.

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad...

There was no remoteness in time, little in space. Two men ran forward to catch it. The man was not injured in his person nor even put in danger. Criticized and explained as this statement may have been, I think it states the law as it should be and as it is. The three may remain for a space, sharply divided.

Duty of Care Cases

The injury of the plaintiff and other victims did not have a need for emergency hospitalization. We look back to the catastrophe, the fire kindled by the spark, or the explosion. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Such is the language of the street. But that is not what we mean by the word. The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us.

Palsgraf v Long_Is_RR

On the contrary, given an explosion, such a possibility might be reasonably expected. Under these circumstances I cannot say as a matter of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate result of the negligence. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Morgan appealed in Court of Appeals. The railroad then appealed to this court. He admits that this was an act of negligence, however negligence is not a tort unless it imports the commission of a wrong, which can only result when a right is violated.

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. case brief

One of the men was carrying a package that, unbeknownst to anyone on the platform, contained fireworks. Each is proximate in the sense it is essential. Was there a direct connection between them, without too many intervening causes? There needs be duty due the one complaining but this is not a duty to a particular individual because as to him harm might be expected. Is a passenger at the other end of the platform protected by the law against the unsuspected hazard concealed beneath the waste? 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. Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History. Palsgraf was standing some distance away.