Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 275 views

    Palsgraf Brief

    Uploaded by

    api-303081426
    Helen Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad after being injured when a man dropped a package containing fireworks while boarding a moving train. Railroad employees had assisted the man in boarding. The trial court found in Palsgraf's favor, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed, finding that the railroad could not be held liable for negligence because the employees had no way of knowing the package contained explosives and thus no duty to prevent injury to Palsgraf. The court established that negligence depends on the defendant's duty to the specific plaintiff and knowledge of the potential hazard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Palsgraf Brief

    Uploaded by

    api-303081426
    275 views2 pages
    Helen Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad after being injured when a man dropped a package containing fireworks while boarding a moving train. Railroad employees had assisted the man in boarding. The trial court found in Palsgraf's favor, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed, finding that the railroad could not be held liable for negligence because the employees had no way of knowing the package contained explosives and thus no duty to prevent injury to Palsgraf. The court established that negligence depends on the defendant's duty to the specific plaintiff and knowledge of the potential hazard.

    Original Title

    palsgraf brief

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Helen Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad after being injured when a man dropped a package containing fireworks while boarding a moving train. Railroad employees had assisted the man in boarding. The trial court found in Palsgraf's favor, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed, finding that the railroad could not be held liable for negligence because the employees had no way of knowing the package contained explosives and thus no duty to prevent injury to Palsgraf. The court established that negligence depends on the defendant's duty to the specific plaintiff and knowledge of the potential hazard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    275 views2 pages

    Palsgraf Brief

    Uploaded by

    api-303081426
    Helen Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad after being injured when a man dropped a package containing fireworks while boarding a moving train. Railroad employees had assisted the man in boarding. The trial court found in Palsgraf's favor, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed, finding that the railroad could not be held liable for negligence because the employees had no way of knowing the package contained explosives and thus no duty to prevent injury to Palsgraf. The court established that negligence depends on the defendant's duty to the specific plaintiff and knowledge of the potential hazard.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Reg Fife

    Palsgraf Brief
    Helen Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company
    Court of Appeals of New York
    248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253
    Decided May 29, 1928
    Facts:
    Helen Palsgraf was injured when a man boarding a moving train dropped a package containing
    fireworks, which exploded on hitting the tracks. The man was assisted by two railroad guards,
    one pulling from the front and one pushing from behind. Since their assistance was deemed to be
    the cause of the man dropping the package and the subsequent explosion, Helen Palsgraf, the
    passenger, sued Long Island Railroad for negligence. The trial court held in favor of the
    passenger, and the railroad appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the
    Second Judicial Department (New York). The Appellate Division upheld the verdict, so the
    railroad appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
    Issue:
    Can a railroad be held liable for negligence if one of its passengers causes an injury when
    assisted by railroad employees?
    Holding: No
    Rule:
    Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do. (Polluck, Torts [11th ed.], p. 455; Martin
    v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 170; cf. Salmond Torts [6th ed.]). Negligence is the absence of care,
    according to the circumstances (Willes J. in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., 5 H. & N. 679, 688; 1
    Beven, Negligence [4th ed.], 7; Paul v. Consol. Fireworks Co., 212 N.Y. 117; Adams v. Bullock,
    227 N.Y. 208, 211; Parrott v. Wells-Fargo Co., 15 Wall. [U.S.] 524.) In every instance, before
    negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to
    the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury
    (McSherry, C.J., in W. Va. Central R. Co. v. State, 96 Md. 652, 666; cf. Norfolk & Western Ry.
    Co. v. Wood, 99 Va. 156, 158, 159; Hughes v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 71 N. H. 279, 284; U.S.
    Express Co. v. Everest, 72 Kan. 517; Emry v. Roanoke Nav. Co., 111 N. C. 94, 95; Vaughan v.
    Transit Dev. Co., 222 N.Y. 79; Losee v. Chute, 51 N.Y. 494; Dicaprio v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co., 231 N.Y.
    94; 1 Sherman and Redfield on negligence 8, and cases cited; Cooley on Torts [3rd ed.], p.
    1411; Jaggard on Torts, vol. 2, p. 826; Wharton, Negligence, 24; Bohlen, Studies in the Law of
    Torts, p. 601). The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative (Bowen L.J., in Thomas
    v. Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685, 694)
    Analysis:
    The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals of New York was that the apellant, The Long
    Island Railroad Company, was not liable for the damages to the respondent, Helen Palsgraf,
    because the actions of the railroad guards did not constitute knowing neglect to the respodents
    safety. They had no way of knowing that the package the passenger was carrying contained

    explosives. The reasoning of the court is that negligence cannot be applied to an injury when the
    hazard is not readily apparent to the individual in question.
    Conclusion:
    In the original case, the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the railroad guards,
    who did not know the passenger they were helping aboard contained fireworks. Thus, the Court
    of Appeals of New York reversed the judgement of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
    in the Second Judicial Department (New York) was reversed and the complaint dismissed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy