Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Case Summary
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS (Palsgraf v. LIRR, p. 224)
The Plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraf was trying to purchase a ticket at a railroad, when a man carrying a package rushed to board a train. This train was owned by the long island railroad. Two railroad employees tried to help him. In the process, the package containing fireworks fell and the contents exploded. As a result of the explosion, some scales at the other end of the platform fell and hit the Plaintiff. Ms. Palsgraf sued the train station and a jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed the decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After this incident Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island railroad co. for negligence. She sued for the compensation of her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. She won at the circuit court. Ms. Palsgraf argued that the negligence was the pushing and pulling of the man with the package, but she did not argue that the scales had been …show more content…
negligently affixed to the wall. She might have had a stronger case if she had used that argument.
Subsequently, Long Island appealed the decision they felt the employees had no idea of the contents of the package. The Appellate Court affirmed the previous decision. Long Island appealed again. This time it was to the New York Court of Appeals, which agreed to hear the case. Attorneys for the Long Island Railroad Company argued that no negligence had been proven, so in fact Ms. Palsgraf's claim should have
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
been dismissed by the lower courts. Ms. Palsgraf's lawyers countered that negligence had been proven and the earlier decisions justified.
Finally, on 29 May 1928 the railroad company were delighted with the result. The New York Court of Appeals found in favor of the Long Island Railroad Company by a margin of 4-3, ruling that "the basis of an action for negligence must be a violation of the plaintiff's own right, and not merely a wrong against someone else." The New York Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint.
STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES
Is there a direct connection between the negligence and the harm?
ULTIMATE LEGAL CONCLUSION
The New York Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Ms. Palsgraf case. This is because it was not foreseeable to the guard that the package contained fireworks and would explode if dropped. The package was unmarked.
SUMMARY OF COURT’S ANALYSIS
The trial court felt there was since Ms. Palsgraf was hit she definitely deserved compensation for what happened. The ruling went in her favor. Long island railroad company appealed the case to the appellate division. They lost again by a 3-2 decision to Palsgraf.
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch.
9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
The long Island co. took the case to the New York supreme court. This time Judge Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case.
STUDENT ANALYSIS
I am in agreeance of the final decision. Since Ms. Palsgraf sued for negligence of the guys pushing and pulling the man with the fireworks, she shouldn’t win. This is because the employees had no idea of what was in the box. I understand why the first two decisions went in Ms. Palsgraf’s way. She was injured so the courts wanted to grant her some money for her pain and probably emotional
damage.
The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin Cardozo revised the case for the last time. Cardozo ruled in favor of LIRR because Before an action may be considered negligent, a failed duty to the individual complaining must be found, which would have or avoided the injury. Nothing about the situation reasonably suggested that the fall of the package would result in an explosion which would harm those at a distance. As such, there was nothing which could foreseeably be done to prevent the accident. Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. This decision changed was used as a stepping stone for most cases about negligence.
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS (Palsgraf v. LIRR, p. 224)
The Plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraf was trying to purchase a ticket at a railroad, when a man carrying a package rushed to board a train. This train was owned by the long island railroad. Two railroad employees tried to help him. In the process, the package containing fireworks fell and the contents exploded. As a result of the explosion, some scales at the other end of the platform fell and hit the Plaintiff. Ms. Palsgraf sued the train station and a jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed the decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After this incident Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island railroad co. for negligence. She sued for the compensation of her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. She won at the circuit court. Ms. Palsgraf argued that the negligence was the pushing and pulling of the man with the package, but she did not argue that the scales had been …show more content…
negligently affixed to the wall. She might have had a stronger case if she had used that argument.
Subsequently, Long Island appealed the decision they felt the employees had no idea of the contents of the package. The Appellate Court affirmed the previous decision. Long Island appealed again. This time it was to the New York Court of Appeals, which agreed to hear the case. Attorneys for the Long Island Railroad Company argued that no negligence had been proven, so in fact Ms. Palsgraf's claim should have
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
been dismissed by the lower courts. Ms. Palsgraf's lawyers countered that negligence had been proven and the earlier decisions justified.
Finally, on 29 May 1928 the railroad company were delighted with the result. The New York Court of Appeals found in favor of the Long Island Railroad Company by a margin of 4-3, ruling that "the basis of an action for negligence must be a violation of the plaintiff's own right, and not merely a wrong against someone else." The New York Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint.
STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES
Is there a direct connection between the negligence and the harm?
ULTIMATE LEGAL CONCLUSION
The New York Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Ms. Palsgraf case. This is because it was not foreseeable to the guard that the package contained fireworks and would explode if dropped. The package was unmarked.
SUMMARY OF COURT’S ANALYSIS
The trial court felt there was since Ms. Palsgraf was hit she definitely deserved compensation for what happened. The ruling went in her favor. Long island railroad company appealed the case to the appellate division. They lost again by a 3-2 decision to Palsgraf.
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch.
9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
The long Island co. took the case to the New York supreme court. This time Judge Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case.
STUDENT ANALYSIS
I am in agreeance of the final decision. Since Ms. Palsgraf sued for negligence of the guys pushing and pulling the man with the fireworks, she shouldn’t win. This is because the employees had no idea of what was in the box. I understand why the first two decisions went in Ms. Palsgraf’s way. She was injured so the courts wanted to grant her some money for her pain and probably emotional
damage.
The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin Cardozo revised the case for the last time. Cardozo ruled in favor of LIRR because Before an action may be considered negligent, a failed duty to the individual complaining must be found, which would have or avoided the injury. Nothing about the situation reasonably suggested that the fall of the package would result in an explosion which would harm those at a distance. As such, there was nothing which could foreseeably be done to prevent the accident. Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. This decision changed was used as a stepping stone for most cases about negligence.