Preview

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

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
752 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad Company Case Brief
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Court of Appeals of New York
248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253
February 24, 1928, Argued
May 29, 1928, Decided
Facts:
The plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was standing at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train. Suddenly, a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform. 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. During this process the man’s package which contained fireworks but guards were not aware of because it was wrapped in newspaper, fell in the railroad track and exploded. As a result of the explosion scales reached Hellen Palsgraf who was in at the other extreme of the platform causing physical injuries. The Hellen (plaintiff) sued the company (defendant) claiming it was liable for negligence. The jury in a trial verdict enters the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed claiming the plaintiff was not able to prove that the railroad company was negligent, but the appellate court affirmed the verdict. The defendant appealed further to the New York highest state court which reversed the judgment.

Issues:
1. Does the actions of the railroad guard were an invasion of a legally protected interest or a protected right (a wrong) to the plaintiff?
2. Does the railroad guard violate a duty of care with the plaintiff standing in the railroad platform?
3. Does the law of proximate cause apply in these circumstances to determine that the defendant is liable for negligence?

Decision:
1. No, the actions of the railroad guard are not considered an invasion to a legally protected interest or right of the plaintiff. Therefore, it

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    After defendant checked Taylor’s driving record and contacted his references they had no reason to believe that Taylor would not be a safe driver. Additionally, the defendant specifically instructs its drivers to stay on the interstate and stop only for emergencies to service the truck and to eat and sleep. Drivers were to sleep in the truck’s sleeping compartment at rest areas or truck stops on the interstate. Defendant’s inquiry into Taylor’s driving record, and past employment information constituted reasonable care in making their hiring decision where the job duties involved minimum contact between the employee and other persons. Taylor’s actions involving his attack on plaintiff were outside the scope of his employment. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to the…

    • 474 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    v. Fernandez - A three year old's body was found in a auger on Spur feeding company's property, when he and two other minors where roaming on the company's property. The father of the three year old filed a wrongful death lawsuit under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The courts held it was not necessary for a child to have been killed or maimed before there was a notice that children may have been attracted to the machinery because the unloading operation was near a public highway, unfenced and wholly unprotected from intrusion, and plainly visible at a distance so as to have been alluring to children traveling along the road. This case is best used to argue the Malones case that Ms. Herrera did not take reasonable care to protect trespassing children from harming themselves on her property which was near a public highway and there was no fence surrounding the condition where Maria Malone received her…

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    R. V. Latimer Case Brief

    • 579 Words
    • 3 Pages

    was uncalled for in light of the fact that the judge chose the guard of need couldn't…

    • 579 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    “Dunlap did not present evidence that the practice can show that a protected group was adversely impacted.” Since he could not prove his claim by challenging the process used in his own interview the courts decided that the disparate impact claim would not be enough sufficient evidence to use against Tennessee Valley…

    • 1102 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Samantha Smith Case

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages

    During an interview of the employees, many of them consented that there could possibly be a safer way to stock the shelves without putting the customers at risk. However, the jury decided that due to the customer’s failure to pay a certain amount of attention that he is partially at fault for his injuries.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Attila Nagy 9/18/2017 ENC3465 Legal Brief 3 State of New York v. Robert Strong Facts Robert Strong belongs to the Sudan Muslim religious faith, which later named him one of the leaders. As part of a well-known ceremony, he performed a religious exercise on the victim by plunging three knives into his chest to stop his heartbeat and breathing without any health repercussion thereafter. Even though this has occurred for over forty years without any fatality, the victim did not survive this exercise. Issue Is the defendant, who fatally exercised his powers of “mind over matter” through plunging knives into victim’s chest for ceremonial purposes, guilty of manslaughter in the second degree? Rule…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1)Danny and Marion Klein were injured when an aerial shell at a public fireworks exhibit went astray and exploded near them. They sued Pyrodyne Corp., the pyrotechnic company that was hired to set up and discharged the fireworks, alleging, among other things, that the company should be strictly liable for damages caused by the fireworks display. Will the court agree with the Kleins? a.Yes, because any time a person ignites aerial shells with the intention of sending them aloft to explode in the presence of large crowds knows that injuries can occur. b.Yes, because no matter how much care pyro technicians exercise they cannot eliminate the high risk inherent in setting off powerful explosives such as fireworks near crowds. c.No, because anyone who attends a fireworks display assumes the risk for the potential of injury that may occur. d.No, because all six of the factors needed to prove strict liability was not present. 2)Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance companies (the Blues) provide 68 million Americans with health-care financing. The Blues have paid billions of dollars for care attributable to illnesses related to tobacco use. In an attempt to recover some of this amount, the Blues filed a suit in federal district court against tobacco companies and others, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence among other things. The Blues claimed that beginning in 1953, the defendants conspired to addict millions of Americans, including members of Blue Cross Plans, to cigarettes and other tobacco products. The conspiracy involved misrepresentation about the safety of nicotine and its addictive properties, marketing efforts targeting children, and agreements not to produce or market safer cigarettes. The defendants’ succe...…

    • 664 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Constitutional Rights Enforceable Under § 1983 23 Reputational Harm 24 Failure to Protect from 3rd Parties 25 State of Mind in Constitutional Torts 26 Procedural Due Process Violations 27 Substantive Due Process Violations 28 Non-Constitutional Rights Enforceable under § 1983 29 § 1983 and Implied Private Rights of Action 31 Damages 32 Compensatory Damages 32 Punitive Damages 33 Punitive Damages for Municipalities 34 Attorney’s Fees 35 Identifying a Prevailing Party 36 Administrative Success 36 Nominal Damages 36 Catalyst Theory 36 Determining Fee Awards 37 Multiple Claims 38 Reasonable Rates 39 Contingent Fees 39 Administrative Proceedings 39 Risk Enhancement 39 Attorney’s Fees & Settlement Negotiations 41 Fee Waivers 41 Rule 68 41 Administration of the Civil Rights Acts: Intersections of State and Federal Law 42 § 1983, Habeas Corpus, and Res Judicata 42 Additional Reconstruction Litigation 47 § 1982 – Freedom of Property 48 § 1981 – Freedom to Contract 49 Structural Reform Litigation 50…

    • 29388 Words
    • 118 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Frederick Douglass called the Supreme Court’s decision on the 1883 Civil Rights Cases “a concession to race pride, selfishness and meanness that will be received with joy by every upholder of caste in the land”. These cases all involved black patrons denied service at hotels, theaters and train cars suing on the grounds that racial discrimination by such institutions was prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In Justice Joseph P. Bradley’s majority opinion, he argued that this act, which allowed Congress to forbid racial discrimination by businesses of a private nature, was unconstitutional, as the Fourteenth Amendment only endowed states with this power. Although Bradley was known for his support of federal supremacy during his time at…

    • 2180 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Initially, no charges were brought against the officer for this incident. Edward Garner’s father then filed a claim with the Federal District Court with no success. They had affirmed the decision that the officer had acted in good faith and within reason. The dissenting opinion of the Court was that the officer had done no wrong and acted rationally under the statute of the state and the departmental policy. The majority opinion was that the 4th Amendment had been violated because the reasonableness of the officers action could not be validated as no harm had been attempted on…

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURTS RULING BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT FORFIETED ANY REASONABLY OBJECTIVE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN HE ABANDONED HIS BELONGINGS IN A PUBLIC PARK WHERE ANY PATRON COULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO…

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Imagine this if you will, you are following your compass in an area you are unfamiliar with when all of a sudden an armed gunman drags you out of the safety of your car to the middle of the street where he and his friends violently strike you over and over. After they finally stop hitting and kicking you, you lay there in pain, bleeding, and not knowing where you are or if anyone if coming to help you ask yourself “Why did this happen to me?” Mr. Boone doesn’t realize at first that turning left instead of right was going to lead him to the fate. He only doesn’t second guess the brand newly installed compass, on his brand new dashboard, of his brand new car. Who would honestly think that something practically out of the box could cause such disaster? Sure, he noticed the neighborhood he was heading into wasn’t all the “savory” but he was not familiar with the city! The fact is that if the compass was in proper working order we would not be arguing this case here today. Mr. Boone would not have been badly beaten and out of work for 20 days because of it, his family would not have had to face the fears of getting a call in the middle of the night about their loved one. As the Plaintiff, Mr. Boone does not have to prove the equipment was…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Equality Act 2010

    • 699 Words
    • 3 Pages

    (8)In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), and subsection (6) as it relates to harassment, neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic—…

    • 699 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. If an actionable battery was committed, whether the Carrousel must be responsible for the damages Flynn owed to Fisher?…

    • 388 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays

Related Topics