Parties:
Ms. Palsgraf
Long Island Railroad Co.
Two employees
Man catching the train carrying the unknown fireworks
Issue: How is the duty of care determined for Ms. Palsgraf safety while on the platform of the train station? Does the Long Island Railroad Co. owe that duty to Ms. Palsgraf? Is the Log Island Railroad Co. responsible for the actual and proximate case of Ms. Palsgraf injuries?
Facts:
The plaintiff (Palsgraf) was standing on a train platform, when a man carrying a package rushed to board a moving train owned by the defendant (Long Island Railroad Co.). Two train employees pushed and pulled the man onto to the train, causing the package which was filled with fireworks to fall onto the tracks. The rear wheels of the train ran …show more content…
Palsgraf. The railroad would have had to breach that specific duty. The brach of duty the railroad company would have actually and approximately caused the harm to Ms. Palsgraf. The harm caused by the railroad co. would have to be measured in monetary damages.
Disposition:
Reversed.
This decision is of importance because it establishes the idea of proximate cause as a limit on the scope of tort liability. Which means that the person can only be held liable for harm that is a reasonably foreseeable result of the wrongful act.
Zone of danger is the reasonable space surrounding the foreseeable scope of the duty. It was not possible for the railway company to have given notice in which a particular manner in which an accident would occur. There were no indicators that fallen package contained explosives so how is it possible that the employees could have known its contents and then in turn prevent the explosion and injuries to Ms. Palsgraf or others in the nearby area.
This would have been different however if the railroad employee say intentionally threw down the package near Ms. Palsgraf with the direct intention of causing harm. Because there was no way for the railroad to have known that there were fireworks in the package, then they did not intentionally injure her or cause
Ms. Palsgraf
Long Island Railroad Co.
Two employees
Man catching the train carrying the unknown fireworks
Issue: How is the duty of care determined for Ms. Palsgraf safety while on the platform of the train station? Does the Long Island Railroad Co. owe that duty to Ms. Palsgraf? Is the Log Island Railroad Co. responsible for the actual and proximate case of Ms. Palsgraf injuries?
Facts:
The plaintiff (Palsgraf) was standing on a train platform, when a man carrying a package rushed to board a moving train owned by the defendant (Long Island Railroad Co.). Two train employees pushed and pulled the man onto to the train, causing the package which was filled with fireworks to fall onto the tracks. The rear wheels of the train ran …show more content…
Palsgraf. The railroad would have had to breach that specific duty. The brach of duty the railroad company would have actually and approximately caused the harm to Ms. Palsgraf. The harm caused by the railroad co. would have to be measured in monetary damages.
Disposition:
Reversed.
This decision is of importance because it establishes the idea of proximate cause as a limit on the scope of tort liability. Which means that the person can only be held liable for harm that is a reasonably foreseeable result of the wrongful act.
Zone of danger is the reasonable space surrounding the foreseeable scope of the duty. It was not possible for the railway company to have given notice in which a particular manner in which an accident would occur. There were no indicators that fallen package contained explosives so how is it possible that the employees could have known its contents and then in turn prevent the explosion and injuries to Ms. Palsgraf or others in the nearby area.
This would have been different however if the railroad employee say intentionally threw down the package near Ms. Palsgraf with the direct intention of causing harm. Because there was no way for the railroad to have known that there were fireworks in the package, then they did not intentionally injure her or cause