Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co

Brief summary The appellate court of the Supreme Court of the Second Trial Court (New York), the Court of First Instance, confirmed that the Long Island Company (defendant) decided that it was the cause of the plaintiff's death by the explosion. Defendant appealed

Summary of the rule of law Plaintiffs have to decide the following elements: responsibility, standard attention, breach of obligation, cause of accident, close cause (range of responsibility) and damages .

Facts Plaintiffs stood on the railroad platform to buy tickets. A man almost collapsed and two railway officials tried to help him. In this process, the package containing fireworks dropped and the contents exploded. Because of the explosion, some of the scale across the platform fell and hit the plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit and the jury worked favorably for her. The Court of Appeals confirmed the decision but withdrew the New York Court of Appeals.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is the main lawsuit in the US Tort Law Act on liability to unexpected plaintiffs. This case was heard at the New York Court of Appeals in the New York State Court of Appeals and the opinion was written by Judge Benjamin Cardoso, the leader of the common law development in the United States and later became the US Supreme Court Judge. As plaintiff Helen Palsgraf waited at Long Island station in August 1924, I took her daughter to the beach. Two men tried to get on the train in front of her; one (assisted by the railroad staff) threw away the explosive package. After the incident she filed a lawsuit after insisting that his staff was negligent in helping him and that he was harmed by negligence and stuttering the railroad.

When the New York State Court of Appeals ruled in Palsgraf in 1928, the state law law followed a classical form of negligence. And I got injured. I could not prove her responsibility was the responsibility I owe. According to the New York precedent, the normal duty of the railroad to bear a customer as a joint shipping company does not apply to the platform or other parts of the station.

o Palsgrave v. Long Island: Muslim commander neglected to help passengers lose their luggage by expressing to the moving train. Firecrackers are installed in the package, explode, and reverse a certain distance. Weight loss and injury Hold: The commander can not predict their behavior will hurt the damage. She is "unexpected embarrassment" and there is no undue risk to anticipate. Rule: People involved in acts and omissions must be predictable. Harm to people and benefits must be foreseeable. (Mr. Cadozo also said that victims must stay in "dangerous areas".)

In the first lawsuit after exemption, allow the original α to act on cost and humiliation. Abuse procedure: Use court procedures like weapons: TRESPASS TO CHATTELS & CONVERSION: