Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad
Content
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Steven Fowler Professor O'toole
Introduction Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad company was a decision, twice appealed, finalized by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York. This incident occurred in 1928 and is one of the largest cases dealing with tort law that was a landmark in the definition and establishment of the idea of proximate cause, negligence, and liability. It is, to this date, a widely reviewed case and is typically a required reading by most first year law students.
Facts The incident of this case is a fairly simple one. A man who was attempting to board a moving train, of the Long Island Railroad Company, was carrying a package which was concealed so that it's contents were unknown visibly. As he was chasing the train down the platform, he lost footing and began to lose his balance. Two guards assisted him so that he didn't fall down. In doing so, the to-be-passenger dropped his package, which turned out to be fireworks, and it exploded in the area between the train and the platform. The resulting explosion caused a penny scale, "many feet away," to consequently fall and injure the plaintiff, Mrs. Palsgraf . She then sued the railroad company for her injuries, claiming she was injured by the negligent acts of the guards whom helped the man. The first two courts that saw this case, the trial court and the intermediate appeals court, found in favor by a jury for the plaintiff. The Long
Island Railroad appealed again, and it was presented and reversed by the New York Court of Appeals with a 4 to 3 vote by the court membership.
Issue There are two main ideas of law that can quickly summarize this case, being the concept of proximate cause and negligence. The main questions regarding this case are: And whether the actions of the guards could be considered to be negligent of the duty owed to Mrs. Palsgraf. Whether the actions of the guard could be considered to be the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Palsgraf. Rule and Application/Analysis As said before, one of the biggest legal issues in this case arises from the concept of negligence. Negligence is promptly defined as "the failure to use reasonable care," however to make this usable, the suing party would need to prove three things. These three things being: The party being accused of negligence has a "duty of care" to the injured party, of which was breached in the incident. The party being sued acted in a way that a reasonable person would have acted differently given the specific circumstances That the damage or injury that occurred was a result of the negligence of the party being sued, also referred to as proximate cause. For this case, the suing party, whom is Mrs. Palsgraf , needed to prove that the guards who helped the man from falling breached their "duty of care" to her specifically, by their
negligent actions. As the package that exploded was wrapped in newspaper, and done so that any reasonable person would have no suspicion as to what the contents were, the guards acted in completely reasonable manners. Although the guards were said by the court to have committed a "wrong" by making the man drop the package, they should not be considered liable for the unforeseeable consequences of their negligence. This shows that it's easy for the plaintiff to show that the railroad guards' were negligent to the man holding the package, but not directly to Palsgraf. A common example used to accentuate this is to say that even if the guard was to remove the package from the man and throw it on the ground, causing it explode, he would have still not have affected his duty to Mrs. Palsgraf because the appearance of the situation would not have threatened the safety of someone standing far away. The liability of doing something wrongful and negligent with full intention of doing it knowingly cannot be greater than the liability of doing something unintentional or inadvertent. Another situation which can used to show a contradiction, is to say that if a guard is on duty and kicks a pile of trash on the ground, which unknowingly was some type of explosive, consequentially explodes and injures someone on the other side of the platform. Should the guard be held liable for the person's injury, even though there was no way that he could have foreseen the inadvertent explosion? Conclusion The New York Court of Appeals had a membership of 7 judges. The conclusion that the judges came up with is one that is widely reviewed and cited in the legal world. The vote was split 4 to 3 with Judge Cardozo speaking for the 4, and Judge Andrews dissenting. Judge Cardozo spoke for the majority and decided to reverse the decision of the two lower courts. His main point was that because the package was concealed, there was no reasonable way for the guard to know that the package would explode and hurt someone far away, therefore, although
there was negligence to the man with the package, there was no negligent action whatsoever relative to Mrs. Palsgraf. Judge Cardozo says: If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong, though apparently not one involving the risk of bodily insecurity, with reference to some one else. In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury After Cardozo explains all his reasons for why he and the three other judges believes that Mrs. Palsgraf is not a victim of the negligent action done by the guards, he quickly says that the law regarding causation is "foreign" in this case. If the question of who is liable for a negligent actions is always asked and answered before the question of causation, and because he already decided that liability for Palsgraf's injuries was not the guards, he ends his explanation. The dissenting judge was Judge Andrews, who was backed by 2 other judges. His main point what that even though the explosion was unforeseeable and the guard couldn't have done anything reasonable different to prevent it from happening, everyone has a general duty to society and if someone commits a negligent act, that person should be held liable for all damages and injuries that result as a consequence. One legal idea that is interesting here is that the idea of proximate cause, which is what Andrews saw this case as a matter as, is decided by a jury, unlike duty of cause. Using this reasoning, the dissenting idea would have upheld the jury's guilty decision. Judge Andrews says:
Except for the explosion, she would not have been injured. We are told by the appellant in his brief "it cannot be denied that the explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing the result—there was here a natural and continuous sequence—direct connection. The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her. There was no remoteness in time, little in space. The obvious difference with Andrews view on this case, as see in this quote, is that he completely refrains from pointing out whether or not the act was foreseeable for not. He thought that if the negligent action could be connected to an injury, within proximate cause, that person should be help liable. And also see in the quote, it's easy to see that the explosion was definitely the cause of the injury sustained by Palsgraf.
Works Cited Courts.state.ny.us. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 222 App. Div. 166 Retreived from http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm Lawnix.com Case Brief Summary Retreived from http://www.lawnix.com/cases/palsgraf-long-island-railroad.html
Introduction Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad company was a decision, twice appealed, finalized by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York. This incident occurred in 1928 and is one of the largest cases dealing with tort law that was a landmark in the definition and establishment of the idea of proximate cause, negligence, and liability. It is, to this date, a widely reviewed case and is typically a required reading by most first year law students.
Facts The incident of this case is a fairly simple one. A man who was attempting to board a moving train, of the Long Island Railroad Company, was carrying a package which was concealed so that it's contents were unknown visibly. As he was chasing the train down the platform, he lost footing and began to lose his balance. Two guards assisted him so that he didn't fall down. In doing so, the to-be-passenger dropped his package, which turned out to be fireworks, and it exploded in the area between the train and the platform. The resulting explosion caused a penny scale, "many feet away," to consequently fall and injure the plaintiff, Mrs. Palsgraf . She then sued the railroad company for her injuries, claiming she was injured by the negligent acts of the guards whom helped the man. The first two courts that saw this case, the trial court and the intermediate appeals court, found in favor by a jury for the plaintiff. The Long
Island Railroad appealed again, and it was presented and reversed by the New York Court of Appeals with a 4 to 3 vote by the court membership.
Issue There are two main ideas of law that can quickly summarize this case, being the concept of proximate cause and negligence. The main questions regarding this case are: And whether the actions of the guards could be considered to be negligent of the duty owed to Mrs. Palsgraf. Whether the actions of the guard could be considered to be the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Palsgraf. Rule and Application/Analysis As said before, one of the biggest legal issues in this case arises from the concept of negligence. Negligence is promptly defined as "the failure to use reasonable care," however to make this usable, the suing party would need to prove three things. These three things being: The party being accused of negligence has a "duty of care" to the injured party, of which was breached in the incident. The party being sued acted in a way that a reasonable person would have acted differently given the specific circumstances That the damage or injury that occurred was a result of the negligence of the party being sued, also referred to as proximate cause. For this case, the suing party, whom is Mrs. Palsgraf , needed to prove that the guards who helped the man from falling breached their "duty of care" to her specifically, by their
negligent actions. As the package that exploded was wrapped in newspaper, and done so that any reasonable person would have no suspicion as to what the contents were, the guards acted in completely reasonable manners. Although the guards were said by the court to have committed a "wrong" by making the man drop the package, they should not be considered liable for the unforeseeable consequences of their negligence. This shows that it's easy for the plaintiff to show that the railroad guards' were negligent to the man holding the package, but not directly to Palsgraf. A common example used to accentuate this is to say that even if the guard was to remove the package from the man and throw it on the ground, causing it explode, he would have still not have affected his duty to Mrs. Palsgraf because the appearance of the situation would not have threatened the safety of someone standing far away. The liability of doing something wrongful and negligent with full intention of doing it knowingly cannot be greater than the liability of doing something unintentional or inadvertent. Another situation which can used to show a contradiction, is to say that if a guard is on duty and kicks a pile of trash on the ground, which unknowingly was some type of explosive, consequentially explodes and injures someone on the other side of the platform. Should the guard be held liable for the person's injury, even though there was no way that he could have foreseen the inadvertent explosion? Conclusion The New York Court of Appeals had a membership of 7 judges. The conclusion that the judges came up with is one that is widely reviewed and cited in the legal world. The vote was split 4 to 3 with Judge Cardozo speaking for the 4, and Judge Andrews dissenting. Judge Cardozo spoke for the majority and decided to reverse the decision of the two lower courts. His main point was that because the package was concealed, there was no reasonable way for the guard to know that the package would explode and hurt someone far away, therefore, although
there was negligence to the man with the package, there was no negligent action whatsoever relative to Mrs. Palsgraf. Judge Cardozo says: If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong, though apparently not one involving the risk of bodily insecurity, with reference to some one else. In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury After Cardozo explains all his reasons for why he and the three other judges believes that Mrs. Palsgraf is not a victim of the negligent action done by the guards, he quickly says that the law regarding causation is "foreign" in this case. If the question of who is liable for a negligent actions is always asked and answered before the question of causation, and because he already decided that liability for Palsgraf's injuries was not the guards, he ends his explanation. The dissenting judge was Judge Andrews, who was backed by 2 other judges. His main point what that even though the explosion was unforeseeable and the guard couldn't have done anything reasonable different to prevent it from happening, everyone has a general duty to society and if someone commits a negligent act, that person should be held liable for all damages and injuries that result as a consequence. One legal idea that is interesting here is that the idea of proximate cause, which is what Andrews saw this case as a matter as, is decided by a jury, unlike duty of cause. Using this reasoning, the dissenting idea would have upheld the jury's guilty decision. Judge Andrews says:
Except for the explosion, she would not have been injured. We are told by the appellant in his brief "it cannot be denied that the explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing the result—there was here a natural and continuous sequence—direct connection. The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her. There was no remoteness in time, little in space. The obvious difference with Andrews view on this case, as see in this quote, is that he completely refrains from pointing out whether or not the act was foreseeable for not. He thought that if the negligent action could be connected to an injury, within proximate cause, that person should be help liable. And also see in the quote, it's easy to see that the explosion was definitely the cause of the injury sustained by Palsgraf.
Works Cited Courts.state.ny.us. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 222 App. Div. 166 Retreived from http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm Lawnix.com Case Brief Summary Retreived from http://www.lawnix.com/cases/palsgraf-long-island-railroad.html
