1. According to Andrews, what is “Proximate” cause, and how is it different from the factual issue of what caused the injury?
a. Proximate cause according to Judge Andrews is something that could not happen without the original event occurring; while, the factual issues is proving the event caused the person’s injuries. In terms of this case the proximate cause would be to show how the man losing his package of fireworks would of held onto it and not lose his grip would have prevented the injury of Palsgraf. While the factual issues would show how because the man lost the grip of his unlabeled package it cause the injury of Palsgraf from the exploding fireworks.
2. How is proximate cause to be determined?
a. Proximate cause is determined through the determination of negligence. In terms of the case it would be proving that because the man left his package unlabeled, no one knew it was dangerous; if labeled then the injuries may have been prevented. The fact that the man jumped onto a moving train in order to catch it; maybe this could have been prevented if the train had a longer waiting period.
3. What is Judge Andrew’s position, and how does it compare with that of Cardozo?
a. Judge Andrews was against the decision that the defendant shouldn’t be liable for injuries caused by unforeseen incidents; while, Cardozo was in favor of the …show more content…
Andrews had the better argument, he was able to look at the facts of the crime and see that there was negligence. In is argument, he even points out that if someone speeds down the street the driver is negligent even if there wasn’t an accident. In terms of this incident, although the man didn’t drop the package himself and the employees were unaware of the content; they are responsible for the event. Cardozo’s argument on the other hand is invalid, his argument is based on mixed up evidence confusing where Palsgraf was located during the incident. Believing that she was near the newspaper stand instead of on the
a. Proximate cause according to Judge Andrews is something that could not happen without the original event occurring; while, the factual issues is proving the event caused the person’s injuries. In terms of this case the proximate cause would be to show how the man losing his package of fireworks would of held onto it and not lose his grip would have prevented the injury of Palsgraf. While the factual issues would show how because the man lost the grip of his unlabeled package it cause the injury of Palsgraf from the exploding fireworks.
2. How is proximate cause to be determined?
a. Proximate cause is determined through the determination of negligence. In terms of the case it would be proving that because the man left his package unlabeled, no one knew it was dangerous; if labeled then the injuries may have been prevented. The fact that the man jumped onto a moving train in order to catch it; maybe this could have been prevented if the train had a longer waiting period.
3. What is Judge Andrew’s position, and how does it compare with that of Cardozo?
a. Judge Andrews was against the decision that the defendant shouldn’t be liable for injuries caused by unforeseen incidents; while, Cardozo was in favor of the …show more content…
Andrews had the better argument, he was able to look at the facts of the crime and see that there was negligence. In is argument, he even points out that if someone speeds down the street the driver is negligent even if there wasn’t an accident. In terms of this incident, although the man didn’t drop the package himself and the employees were unaware of the content; they are responsible for the event. Cardozo’s argument on the other hand is invalid, his argument is based on mixed up evidence confusing where Palsgraf was located during the incident. Believing that she was near the newspaper stand instead of on the