Helen palsgraf respondent v the long island railroad company case brief
The package contained fireworks which exploded when they hit the ground.
There was no remoteness in time, little in space. If judges could see—if not through statistics, then perhaps through the social history of the railroad industry—just how dangerous trains were and how much death and destruction they left in their path, they may have been less inclined to think that Mrs.
Donoghue v stevenson
Is the effect of cause on result not too attenuated? One of the scales hit the P. As it began to move again, two men raced for the train, and one made it without incident, as the doors had not closed. If judges could see—if not through statistics, then perhaps through the social history of the railroad industry—just how dangerous trains were and how much death and destruction they left in their path, they may have been less inclined to think that Mrs. At this time, another train bound for a different location stopped at the platform and two men raced to board it. Pound , Irving Lehman and Henry Kellogg. Seeger wrote the majority opinion for the five justices hearing the case, and was joined by Justices William F. The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her.
Cardozo's statement of facts, Palsgraf v. Crane and John F. Addison Young wrote a dissent. The explosive package is described as small, though the witnesses had described it as large.
The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative. Disposition of case: The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Liability can be no greater where the act is inadvertent.
United states v. carroll towing co.
Supreme Court. At this time, another train bound for a different location stopped at the platform and two men raced to board it. If it exploded and injured one in the immediate vicinity, to him also. The range of reasonable apprehension is at times a question for the court, and at times, if varying inferences are possible, a question for the jury. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. The Court concluded that there was no negligence because defendant railroad could not have reasonably foreseen that its employees' conduct would have resulted in injury to plaintiff Palsgraff. Beyond a certain point, it cannot be traced, and such is proximate cause, "because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. We may regret that the line was drawn just where it was, but drawn somewhere it had to be. ISSUE: Whether a defendant may be held liable for injury caused to a plaintiff that is not reasonably foreseeable.
The fireworks when they fell exploded.
based on 33 review