Preview

Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Case Summary

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1076 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Case Summary
Case Study of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Andrew William Pence
Liberty University

Abstract
Palsgraf was severely injured due to a blast that shook the railroad station. The unmarked package of fireworks that was dropped by another party boarding a moving train caused the explosion. The explosion caused large iron scales to fall on Plasgrof. As a result, Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad for the conductor’s negligence, whom she blames for pulling the commuter on the train. Which initiated the domino effect leading up to her injuries. Judge Cardoza ruled in favor of the Long Island Railroad because the conductor could not have known the passenger had fireworks. The action of the conductor was not a proximate-enough cause
…show more content…

Starting with legal factors, there are two major types of civil torts. One type deals with intent, while this particular case deals with negligence. Intent is also an element contained in criminal law and constitutional law. However, Palsgraf sued the conductor for negligence. “Negligence is when one party fails to act reasonably and harm occurs, even though that party did not intend to cause harm; the party is liable for any injuries or damages suffered by another party as a result of the unreasonable conduct.” (Melvin, p.272). There are five elements for negligence that must be proved in order to recover a lawsuit. In this case, the proximate (legal) cause was ruled in favor of the conductor. The relationship between the act and the injury must be forseeable, which it was not. Legally, the issue involved is negligence. This case also set the standard for foreseeability. The conductor and the commuter are socially involved. The special relationship involved is the train company to its passengers. Palsgraf was not a passenger at the time of the accident and the railroad carried their special relationship to the commuters. The conductor’s intent was to safely board the commuter. It was not the commuter’s intent to drop his package containing the explosives. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty of helping the …show more content…

“Negligence contains five elements; duty, breach of duty, cause in effect, proximate cause, and actual damages.” (McGrady). Though each element contains certain questions that must be answered about the conduct in question. For Duty, did the tortfeasor owe a duty of care to the injured party? The conductor or the commuters did not owe a direct duty of care to Palsgraf. Did the tortfeasor fail to exercise reasonable care? A breach of duty was not sustained. There was not a general duty to act. The conductor displayed reasonable care by helping the commuter onto the train. For cause and effect, would the injured party have suffered damages? Since, the conductor helped the commuter up causing the package to explode caused injuries to Palsgraf, there is a cause and effect. For the proximate cause, was there a legally recognized and close-in-proximity link between the breach of duty and the damages suffered by the injured party? The proximate cause doesn’t place Palsgraf in close proximity to the actions carried out by the conductor. For actual damages, did the injured party suffer some physical harm that resulted in identifiable losses? Finally, there were actual damages. Palsgraf suffered a severe injury according to the case study. To answer the original question, all of the other elements of a negligence tort was not satisfied in this case. The second and

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    In 2013, a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic(MMA) oil cargo train derailed in Downtown Lac Megantic starting a fire that before it was controlled left many people dead and economic loss. The catastrophe took place due to two main factors which are the lack of safety culture from MMA and the insufficient supervision of Transport Canada(TC). For instance, one factor that TC did not consider was the weaknesses in the oversight of the railway conditions. MMA has had issues regarding safety, that TC has been continuously reporting but not being sure those issues were effectively solved, such as the lack of quality in the crew arrangements and its training level. Another active factor was an improper repair of the mentioned train time ago, that ended up in the starting fire causing the procedures against fire were executed and initiating the…

    • 482 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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

    Hahnousek Case Summary

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages

    4. Although Hansouk was in charge of overseeing the facilities of the railroad project his defense would not stand a chance in court because he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device that would potentially be a danger to the public. He would at a minimum be guilty of “strict liability” which would enable him to be convicted of a violation even if he had no knowledge of the illegality of the action or knowledge of the action itself.…

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because this Court should apply the law of East Kansas. This case involves a conflict of law issue because West Kansas’s law provides that worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees, who are victims of intentional torts, while East Kansas says that worker’s compensation is not the exclusive remedy. Under the governmental interest approach to conflicts of law, this Court should resolve this conflict in favor of East Kansas because it has an interest in applying its law, while West Kansas does not.…

    • 974 Words
    • 4 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

    Ls 311 Unit 2 Assignment

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Negligence is defined as an unintentional tort and occurs when someone is injured because of the failure of someone else. Duty of care is the obligation by an individual to keep foreseeable harm from others. Certain actions can be tolerated and some cannot; which simply means that some actions are right and some actions are wrong. (Fundamentals of Business Law, pg. 80) In this case John Davis was at the exit while patrons left the art show. Unexpectedly Mr. Davis spun around colliding with Ms. Esposito. Ms Esposito, an 80 year old woman, fell to the ground because of the collision with John Davis. The fall to the ground fractured Ms Esposito’s hip and resulted in replacement hip surgery for her. The law recognizes the duty on the part of the employer to keep the flow of the pedestrians unobstructed. The burden imposed upon John Davis to keep a proper lookout in the access area to a building is easy to show. Whereas, showing the likelihood of serious injury when a patron is knocked to the ground is much harder to prove. The burden of such a precaution is reasonable in order to protect customers or pedestrians in their use of the access areas to a building." AN employee is an extension of the employer and is under the same obligations.…

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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
  • Good Essays

    On February 24, 1928 the Court of Appeals of New York first heard the agreement of Helen Palsgraf verses The Long Island Railroad company, appellant. After three long month of hearing both parties argument the majority ruled that the railroad is not liable for Palsgraf’s injuries because the injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the railroads negligence’s. The opposing side argued that if the duty can be traced back to the wrongful act that it is sufficient enough to establish liability. In my opinion I agree with the majority decision that even thought the workers of the Long Island Railroad did help push the man with the package onto the train, they had to way of physically knowing that the package was dangerous and going…

    • 505 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Long Island Railroad). Negligence is the legal term given to actions that breach the duty of care that one owes another according to the law. The court considered that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to Helen Palsgraf, and therefore no negligence was committed. The court found that the risk of the harm was unforeseeable. According to The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, “If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists” (2014, pg.224). The court found that the actions which occurred were not only unforeseeable in to the objective observer, but also to Helen Palsgraf. This is to say that the risk was unforeseeable to an objective or reasonably subjective person in her position. The court found that the proximity of the plaintiff to the cause of action was irrelevant. Long Island Railroad actions or inactions caused no negligence to Helen Palsgraf. Even if there was negligence toward someone else, this is not a basis for a claim by Helen…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    227 Kan. 780; 610 P. 2d 580; 1980 Kan. LEXIS 280; 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1362…

    • 1686 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hsa 515 Law and Health

    • 1411 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The first element that a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant owed him or her legal duty of care. Generally, this duty of care is a legal notion that states that people owe anyone around them or anyone who could be around them a duty to not place them in situations of undue risk of harm. Proving this element will largely depend on the facts of the situation. After the plaintiff has proved that a legal duty of care existed, he or she must then prove that this duty was breached. Generally, courts will use the standard of a ‘reasonable person’ when it comes to this question. Specifically, this means that the judge or jury must view the facts of the situation and decide what a reasonable person would have done in a similar situation. If this reasonable person would have acted differently than the defendant, it’s likely that it will be found that the duty was breached. Causation is the most complicated element of negligence. It means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either directly or indirectly caused the injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the breach of the duty of care. This element has confused even the most respected legal minds over time, and its proof should not be taken lightly. Last, a plaintiff in a negligence case must prove a legally recognized harm, usually in the form of physical injury to a person or to property. It is not enough that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care (FindLaw 2012). These damages can be actual costs such as medical expenses and lost income or intangible costs such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship.…

    • 1411 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    HTTP:// WWW.LAW.COM >Palsgraf Railroad Injury Proximate Cause of Family Curse , http://www.law.com/jsp/law/law Article Friendly.jsp?id=900005541516 Retrieved October 15, 2008 Written By: Mark Fass 12-10-2004…

    • 827 Words
    • 4 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

    Legality of Security Work

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Negligence liability arises when a person has a duty to act reasonably but fails to do so, resulting injuries. The elements of negligent liability include the existence of some duty owed or duty to protect. Employers are expected to protect their employees and the public. If an employee injures another, the employer and the company will be held liable for negligent retention since by an employer hiring a security officer, that does not relieve him from responsibility. The concept ‘respondent superior’ helps to explain that premises owners cannot delegate their responsibilities. The employer can only escape liability if he proves the existence of non-delegable duty. Otherwise, he would be fall under vicarious liability where the employer carries the burden of his employee.…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Nonetheless, Samantha has caused more injury than it originally had, as the fire’s strength increased. Applying Lai Tai Tai’s case, it would be likely that Samantha had created a situation of peril. Had she not throw the water in, the fire might not have increased in strength. Under such situation, she would have the duty of care to Eric and might be liable in negligence for the injury of Eric. It is therefore apparent that Samantha would not be entitled to the damaged but might be liable…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays

Related Topics