Long Island Railroad Case Summary
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ms. Palsgraf successfully sued the Long Island Railroad Company for compensation for her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. The Long Island Railroad Company appealed this decision to the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, Second Department, which upheld the lower court's ruling. The company appealed once more to the New York Court of Appeals, which agreed to hear the case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff was purchasing a ticket on the railroad platform. A train stopped on the platform and two men ran to get on it, one of the men stumbled and was helped by two of the railroad employees. While heling the man a package containing fireworks fell and exploded. A coin-operated scale toppled on to the Plaintiff. …show more content…
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff: Palsgraf’s attorney brought information as to what symptoms Palsgraf had according to her physician. She additionally had two daughters, another person waiting on train platform and a neurologist. They argued that it was wrong that occurred was against her.
Defendant: No one at the Long Island Rail Co. knew that the package held fireworks. The company was unable to prevent this as they had no inclination to the contents of the package and the employee did not intentionally throw the package while knowing the contents. They argued that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant and if there had been negligence it was not what hurt Palsgraf since the injury came out an incident not related to assisting a man board a train. The Rail co moved to have the case dismissed because the Plaintiff did not present any evidence of negligence.
RULE OF LAW APPLIED BY COURT
Sir Frederick Pollock, The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (4th
Ms. Palsgraf successfully sued the Long Island Railroad Company for compensation for her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. The Long Island Railroad Company appealed this decision to the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, Second Department, which upheld the lower court's ruling. The company appealed once more to the New York Court of Appeals, which agreed to hear the case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff was purchasing a ticket on the railroad platform. A train stopped on the platform and two men ran to get on it, one of the men stumbled and was helped by two of the railroad employees. While heling the man a package containing fireworks fell and exploded. A coin-operated scale toppled on to the Plaintiff. …show more content…
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff: Palsgraf’s attorney brought information as to what symptoms Palsgraf had according to her physician. She additionally had two daughters, another person waiting on train platform and a neurologist. They argued that it was wrong that occurred was against her.
Defendant: No one at the Long Island Rail Co. knew that the package held fireworks. The company was unable to prevent this as they had no inclination to the contents of the package and the employee did not intentionally throw the package while knowing the contents. They argued that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant and if there had been negligence it was not what hurt Palsgraf since the injury came out an incident not related to assisting a man board a train. The Rail co moved to have the case dismissed because the Plaintiff did not present any evidence of negligence.
RULE OF LAW APPLIED BY COURT
Sir Frederick Pollock, The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (4th