Essay # 1 – Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
In this essay, I argue against Cardoza’s ruling in the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. I disagree that the original judgment finding the Railroad Company negligent should have be overturned. I begin with a summary of the case. I will then explain both Cardoza’s and Andrew’s views with reference to negligence and duty of care, which are most relevant in this case. I will explain why Cardoza’s decision may be considered incorrect or questionable. In the case of Palsgraf vs Long Island R.R. Co, the plaintiff, Palsgraf, was waiting on the platform waiting for her train. A man, carrying a package, was hurrying to catch his train. While the train was already in motion, the guards helped a man …show more content…
Here I confine myself to the first branch of the definition. Nor do I comment on the word "unreasonable." For present purposes it sufficiently describes that average of conduct that society requires of its members.” (Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.)
The duty of care should not only extend to those the guard’s act would expect to injure, but anyone who was injured. The person who did the wrongdoing should be liable for the proximate results of his actions. To put it more simply, Andrews felt that negligence was a relative concept. Generally, he was of the belief that everyone had the duty to not commit acts that may result in harming others. To summarize, both Cardozo and Andrews examined the duty of care in reference to negligence. To Cardozo, in order for there to be a duty to care, there had to be connection between the Defendant, the Railroad Company, and the harm that was caused to the plaintiff, Palsgraf. For Andrews, the duty runs to the world at large and everyone must be aware that their acts could harm others and that they are
In this essay, I argue against Cardoza’s ruling in the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. I disagree that the original judgment finding the Railroad Company negligent should have be overturned. I begin with a summary of the case. I will then explain both Cardoza’s and Andrew’s views with reference to negligence and duty of care, which are most relevant in this case. I will explain why Cardoza’s decision may be considered incorrect or questionable. In the case of Palsgraf vs Long Island R.R. Co, the plaintiff, Palsgraf, was waiting on the platform waiting for her train. A man, carrying a package, was hurrying to catch his train. While the train was already in motion, the guards helped a man …show more content…
Here I confine myself to the first branch of the definition. Nor do I comment on the word "unreasonable." For present purposes it sufficiently describes that average of conduct that society requires of its members.” (Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.)
The duty of care should not only extend to those the guard’s act would expect to injure, but anyone who was injured. The person who did the wrongdoing should be liable for the proximate results of his actions. To put it more simply, Andrews felt that negligence was a relative concept. Generally, he was of the belief that everyone had the duty to not commit acts that may result in harming others. To summarize, both Cardozo and Andrews examined the duty of care in reference to negligence. To Cardozo, in order for there to be a duty to care, there had to be connection between the Defendant, the Railroad Company, and the harm that was caused to the plaintiff, Palsgraf. For Andrews, the duty runs to the world at large and everyone must be aware that their acts could harm others and that they are