Summary: Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Company
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company
Issue:
Ms. Palsgraf, a customer of the Long Island Railroad Company, was injured one day while awaiting her train. Her injury was sustained as two railroad employees assisted another passenger onto a train and the other customer’s package which contained fireworks (concealed) fell onto the rails as a result of the assistance provided by the company’s employees. Consequently, the fireworks caused an explosion when it came into contact with the rails and dislodged scales at the other end of the railroad where Ms. Palsgraf was awaiting her train; due to the injuries Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad Company. Is the Long Island Railroad liable for damages to Ms. Palsgraf with regard to proximate cause on the employee’s actions?
Rule:
The Appellate Court of New York Held that the employees were not negligent in their actions and therefore did not have a duty to Ms. Pelgraf. Additionally, it was determined that there were no wrong or wrongful actions with regards to the incident which caused Ms. Pelgraf’s injuries, to which her case was built upon; “Wrong” being defined in terms of the natural or probable, at least when unintentional. Lastly, negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, which violates a right; therefore, the law …show more content…
Quartermaine thereby establishing the relationship between negligence and duty. With respect to the determination of wrong and wrongful the case of Parrot v. Wells-Fargo Co set the standard and assisted in making the determination that the most cautious mind would not be able to foresee the wreckage caused by the wrapped package. Furthermore, it was useful in determining that Ms. Pelgraf had not proved that a wrong was done to her
Issue:
Ms. Palsgraf, a customer of the Long Island Railroad Company, was injured one day while awaiting her train. Her injury was sustained as two railroad employees assisted another passenger onto a train and the other customer’s package which contained fireworks (concealed) fell onto the rails as a result of the assistance provided by the company’s employees. Consequently, the fireworks caused an explosion when it came into contact with the rails and dislodged scales at the other end of the railroad where Ms. Palsgraf was awaiting her train; due to the injuries Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad Company. Is the Long Island Railroad liable for damages to Ms. Palsgraf with regard to proximate cause on the employee’s actions?
Rule:
The Appellate Court of New York Held that the employees were not negligent in their actions and therefore did not have a duty to Ms. Pelgraf. Additionally, it was determined that there were no wrong or wrongful actions with regards to the incident which caused Ms. Pelgraf’s injuries, to which her case was built upon; “Wrong” being defined in terms of the natural or probable, at least when unintentional. Lastly, negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, which violates a right; therefore, the law …show more content…
Quartermaine thereby establishing the relationship between negligence and duty. With respect to the determination of wrong and wrongful the case of Parrot v. Wells-Fargo Co set the standard and assisted in making the determination that the most cautious mind would not be able to foresee the wreckage caused by the wrapped package. Furthermore, it was useful in determining that Ms. Pelgraf had not proved that a wrong was done to her