Citation248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Brief Fact Summary. While a passenger trying to jump aboard, he dropped a package which contained fireworks and exploded. The explosion caused some scales to fall and hit Plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If defendant commits a negligent act, defendant would be liable for that risk of some foreseeable result, but generally not liable for an entirely different, unforeseeable result. ...
Search Results
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Citation248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. Ms. Palsgraf was struck by railroad scales when a man’s package of fireworks dropped and exploded while he was struggling to get on a moving train. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A defendant’s duty is limited to that risk which can be reasonably foreseen within a range of apprehension. ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Citation162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. Palsgraf (Plaintiff) was standing on the platform of Long Island Railroad Co. (Defendant) when another passenger’s package exploded and caused some scales to tip over and hit Plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person cannot be held liable for harm that is not of the type that would be foreseeable. ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Citation162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928)Brief Fact Summary. A woman was injured after fireworks fell under a train and exploded. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A claim of negligence is not actionable if it did not invade a legally protected interest of the plaintiff. ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.
Citation162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. The plaintiff was waiting on the platform for her train when a man carrying a package rushed to catch the train pulling out of the station. He attempted to jump into the train car, with assistance from a guard on the platform and a guard in the car, but he dropped his package onto the tracks. The package contained fireworks, and it exploded upon impact, causing scales on the other end of the platform to fall on and injure the plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A negligent party’s duty of care ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
CitationPalsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 162 N.E. 99, 248 N.Y. 339, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269, 59 A.L.R. 1253 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. A railway guard employed by the Defendant, the Long Island R.R. Co. (Defendant), caused a man to drop a package of fireworks upon the tracks. The fireworks caused an explosion and the force of the explosion caused a scale at the other end of the station to fall on the Plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraf (Plaintiff) and injure her. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A negligent party only owes a duty to the party who was directly wronged by them. ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R
Citation248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Brief Fact Summary. Defendant helped to push a man aboard a train. The man’s package fell. Inside were firecrackers, which exploded causing some scales to fall and injure Plaintiff Synopsis of Rule of Law. Chief Justice Cardozo, writing for the majority held that negligence is based on the foreseeability of the harm between the parties. Justice Andrews, writing for the minority stated that each person owes an absolute duty of care; i.e. each person must refrain from acts (foreseeable or not) that unreasonably threaten the safety of others. ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
Citation 248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York) affirmed the trial court’s holding that the Long Island R. Co. (Defendant) was responsible for injuries to Plaintiff resulting from an explosion. The Defendant appealed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. To recover for negligence, the plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: duty, standard of care, breach of duty, cause-in-fact, proximate cause (scope of liability) and damages. ...
Waube v. Warrington
Citation258 N.W. 497 (1935) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant for causing her shock and distress when Plaintiff saw Defendant’s vehicle strike and kill her son. The trial court denied Defendant’s demurrer. Defendant appealed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. There can be no recovery for physical injuries sustained by a plaintiff as a result of the shock of witnessing another’s danger who is out of the zone of danger or range of ordinary physical peril. ...