Preview

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2346 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York
Argued February 24, 1928
Decided May 29, 1928

248 NY 339
CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co.

[*340] 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 at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help [*341] him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.
The conduct of the defendant 's guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. "Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do" (Pollock, Torts [11th ed.], p. 455; Martin v. Herzog, 228 N. Y. 164, 170; cf. Salmond, Torts [6th ed.], p. 24). "Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances" (WILLES, J., in

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    ISSUE Is the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the fact that the plaintiff had singed…

    • 258 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Scarlet Rose Case Summary

    • 330 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In the case of Scarlet Rose her claim for damages done to her and bills brought up for damages that occur to her because of her slip and fall accident at the Nickel & Dime store on January 31, 2001. Ms. Rose wants compensation for the accident at Nickel & Dime and her medical bills paid. Ms. Rose entered Nickel & Dime and as she was walking and she slipped over a box in the middle of the isle that an employee had placed there. Ms. Rose says that she did not see the box as a rack was blocking her view. She was in a little hurry, but not distracted.…

    • 330 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Smith filed a complaint in trial court claiming that the store was negligent with maintaining safety of their store. She is seeking damages for injuries that she suffered from the fall. The store claims that Smith is just as much at fault as they are and that she was not paying attention to where she was walking because she was too distracted by her child.…

    • 530 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Plaintiff trespassed on defendant’s property with the intent to steal items from inside the un-occupied house and was shot in the leg by a spring gun hidden behind a door.…

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Simons has been employed by the Mall as a security sergeant for four years. Simon’s duties include walking through the Mall to inspect the common areas for substances that could cause customers to slip and fall. Simons was working on June 13th, 2003, and between 4:19 and 4:21 p.m., Simons inspected the area where Patterson later fell and did not see any substance, including cheese that would pose a danger as a potential slip or fall. Had Simons noticed such a substance he would have notified housekeeping to clean it. Simons was informed after 4:25 p.m. that a customer had fallen in the area he had just inspected and he returned immediately to assist Patterson.…

    • 2827 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis: Samantha is not able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor; therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held liable for Samantha’s injuries.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The question being presented today, is if both parties involved are equally responsible? Ms. Smith does in fact possibly hold some sort of comparative fault in this case. The grocery store did complete their scheduled aisle check just thirty minutes before Ms. Smith slipped. IND. Code Ann. §34-51-2-5 (WEST 1998) states that “in an action based on fault, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimants contributory fault, but does not bar recovery”.…

    • 1007 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Summary

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The tort of negligence in this scenario includes the five essential elements of negligence, duty, breach of duty, the breach being the cause of injury, proximate, and the resulting damages (Lucas, 2008). In a case of negligence the individual or company may be held liable not only with negligence but sometimes with trespass, injury, and even mental or emotional harm (Lucas, 2008). However, the law requires these elements are proven in order to recover in a law suit against a torfeasor for negligence (Melvin,…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    PA205

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The load that fell off of the defendant's truck caused the plaintiff to swerve and be struck by a beer case.…

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    dynamic business law

    • 761 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Javier Galindo, the husband of the plaintiff, was sitting in his car in the driveway of Mr. Clark's property waiting to pick up his wife, who worked as a housekeeper for Mr. Clark, when a leaning 80 ft tree on an adjacent property fell on the plaintiff's husband's car and killed him. Ms. Galindo sued Mr. Clark for failing to notify her husband of the danger posed by the leaning tree.…

    • 761 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    midterm mgmt 520

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page

    The key element of a Tort of Negligence that the railroad uses in their defense is proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable. Long island railroad attendants could not have foreseen the possibility of injuring Mrs. Palsgraph. Thus they did not breach any duty to her. Every person is required to stay clear from activities that may cause any injuries to others, in case of proximate cause, there has to be a natural relation between the causative factor and its effect and not if it could remotely injure a third party. In this case, injury in some form was possible. Negligent conduct resulting in injury to the plaintiff will lead to a liability if it could have been reasonably foreseen. Long island rail road definitely did not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff. There was no element of the negligence of proximate cause in this case. The rail road would be negligent if any ham was caused to the plaintiff by objects falling from a passing train on the tracks.…

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Aarons V. Peterson

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages

    However, he took no measures to secure the tools either by fastening a lock or relocating the toolbox to a less accessible location. His failure to protect the children from the potential harm arising from their use of the tools is a breach of his duty owed to the plaintiff. Causation - The defendant’s son was able to obtain dangerous instruments, a hammer and nail, which were housed within an accessible toolbox. While using the hammer to make a blow to a nail, the nail flew out from the wood and stuck the neighbor. Actual Injury - The nail strike chipped the neighbor’s front teeth, bloodied his nose, and gashed his cheek.…

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Elements Of Negligence

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page

    Negligence law states that a person or an organization is generally liable when they negligently injure others.…

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident?…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983)…

    • 2195 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays