Comprehensive Brief of Palsgraf, v Long Island Railroad Co:

 

CITATION: Palsgraf, v Long Island Railroad Co, 248 N. Y. 339; "162 N.E. 99 "1928"

PARTIES: Palsgraf /Plaintiff/Plaintiff at trial/Respondent / Respondent, Court of Last Resort

Long Island/Defendant/Defendant at trial/Appellant/ Appellant, Court of Last Resort

OBJECTIVE OF PARTIES: Palsgraf was seeking payment of damages she sustained when a railway scale fell on her.

     Long Island railroad was seeking to avoid paying damages to Palsgraf.

THEORIES OF THE LITIGATION: 1. TRIAL: Palsgraf sought damages from the Long Island Railroad Using the tort of negligence; a jury found for the plaintiff Palsgraf. The opinion does not state the railroad defenses at trial but it is assumed they argued they were not negligent.

2. APPEAL: The railroad appealed stating that Palsgraf "failed to establish that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant and it was error for the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint". And respondent said "The judgment of affirmance was amply sustained by the law" the court affirmed the trial courts finding.

3. APPEAL TO COURT OF LAST RESORT: The Majority decision of the court was to overturn the lower court based on the element PROXIMATE CAUSE (the legal theory of the unintentional tort of negligence requires 4 elements all of which must be met).

HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION: 1. TRIAL COURT: Palsgraf the plaintiff brings suit against Long Island Railroad for damages from negligence.

RESULT: Judgment by the jury for Palsgraf

Prior Proceeding; 2. First Appeal: The appellant court affirms trial courts judgment for respondent Palsgraf

Present Proceeding; 3. Appeal by Long Island Rail Road at court of last resort

FACTS: "Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station bound for another place two men ran forward to catch it . One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act the package of small size about fifteen inches long and it was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks. But there was nothing in the appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell they exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.

ISSUE: Is the act of the servant (employee of the railroad) the proximate cause of the damages to Palsgraf?

HOLDING: NO

A reasonable person would not have been able to foresee that the newspaper covered parcel would pose a threat to someone not in the vicinity of it; so the employee of the railroad was not the proximate cause of the damage to Mrs. Palsgraf. The explosion was the proximate cause. Using the same rationale the court says the only actionable wrong committed was the damage done to the dropped packages contents. One wrong does not transfer into a different type of wrong i.e. the negligence against property does not make what happens next to be any ones fault if it is not foreseeable to a uninterested reasonable person.

DISPOSITION: The appeals court judgment is reversed with costs levied against Palsgraf. Writing for the Majority was Justice Cardozo

DISSENTING OPINION: written by ANDREWS In a nut shell all people should be held accountable for their actions and pay to right the wrongs that those actions caused and if a direct line can be drawn to something that they did that ultimately caused that harm they should right the wrong or make that person whole again.

MY OPINION: This case is about limiting suits, that not everything is somebodies fault sometimes things just happen and you have to bear the loss yourself.