civil case Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Co. (248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; Courts of Appeals New York (1928) The unique facts of the case created a need for a new application of the generally accepted theory that “negligence is the absence of care‚ according to the circumstances of the case”. (Benjamin Cardozo‚ 1928 N.Y. Lexis 1269; 59 A.L.R 1253). The famous accident occurred at the Queen’s Jamaica Station on the morning of Aug. 24‚ 1924. According to New York Times‚ 1924 Helen Palsgraf was standing
Premium Law Common law Tort
for a company. The readings analyze intentional torts and negligence with the intentional torts against persons‚ as well as examples of cases that address this issue. You study unintentional tort (negligence)‚ and you discuss the seminal case of Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company. The readings also address strict liability and product liability. This information focuses on defective products and manufacture‚ design‚ packaging‚ and failure to warn. Torts OBJECTIVE: Identify potential
Premium Tort
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
Premium United States Law Civil procedure
Chapter 3: Civil Dispute Revolution Ram Products Co.‚ Inc vs. Chauncey US District Court‚ N.D. Indiana‚ South Band Division‚ F. Supp 1071 Facts: Warren Chauncey is a resident of Indiana resident‚ and the previous Vice President of marketing and Sales for Ram Products which was based in Michigan. Chauncey is fifty-nine years old and has been employed as a plastic surgeon for twenty-five years. Replex Plastics‚ based in Ohio‚ is another corporation that is also in the plastic industry. Chauncey
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal Appellate court
negligent while the other was just a simple example of the situation being unavoidable. In the case of Izquierdo V. Gyroscope‚ Inc. Jane knew about the traditions of the club and knew about the risks of the napkins being on the floor. However in Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Co. Helen had no idea that the unlabeled box that was near her would contain fireworks‚ making this the defendants fault. Citation 2: New York Supreme Court‚ Appellate division‚ third department‚ 2004 8 A.D. 3d 855
Premium
proximately causes plaintiff’s injury‚” was flawed. Moreover‚ that “at some point along the causal chain‚ the passage of time and the span of distance mandate a cut-off point for liability.” Id. Justice Nix‚ quoting Justice Andrew’s dissent in Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.‚ 248 N.Y. ‚352 argued public policy cannot allow the Defendant to be responsible for every unforeseeable proximate cause that consequently results from of the Defendant’s negligent conduct. Justice Nix admittedly quotes Sinn
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff
From Evernote: | Midterm Cases | Chapter 1: Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors‚ Inc. Trial Court dismissed the suit saying it was property owner’s fault. Issue: An employee of the property owner was killed when a concrete wall collapsed. Should the risk of liability stay only on the property owner‚ or extend to a contractor? Rule: For the past forty years it has been the rule that liability belongs only to the property owner
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who‚ then‚ in law‚ is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable
Premium Duty of care Tort Tort law
The law of negligence has the potential to impose wide liability on defendants. The approach of the courts has traditionally been to try control the scope of allowable claims in negligence and to limit their bounds while balancing the rights to compensation of plaintiffs and the rights of defendants not to be disproportionately burdened. Elias CJ’s quote raises an interesting question about the emphasis of the courts in the formula they have developed to test actionable negligence. Similarities
Premium Negligence Law Plaintiff
Case D‚ which discusses the malfunctioning of a component of a Zoom car‚ presents an issue common in the business world today. While product liability cases are not uncommon‚ successful cases for the plaintiffs often involve them having to prove many aspects of negligence and product liability – primarily duty of care‚ actual and proximate cause‚ and proof that the defendant is directly at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Because the doctrine of strict liability likely applies in this case‚ Daniel
Premium Tort Law Negligence