...Case Study Analysis of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company Michael J. Roberts Liberty University Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Company is a case where the plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraf, was on one end of a train platform when a package was knocked out of the hands of another passenger who was attempting to board a moving train with the assistance of a guard, the defendant, on the other end of the train platform. The package being knocked out of the passenger’s arms and onto the ground created an explosion which knocked over some scales that were near Ms. Palsgraf and caused harm to her at the opposite end of the train platform. Mr. Palsgraf is taking the Long Island Rail Company, representing the guard on the platform, to court for damages she suffered through the injuries caused by the scale falling on her as a result of the guards assisting another passenger onto the train and knocking the package out which then exploded. Negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong imports the violation of a right, in this case, we are told, the right to be protected against interference with one’s bodily security. (Edwards, 1999, p. 131) In this case negligence is not a consideration as the guard was unaware of the contents of the passenger and he was doing his duty in protecting the passenger by pushing him onto the train before he fell off and injured himself. Proximate cause concerns arise because it may sometimes seem...
Words: 858 - Pages: 4
...Tort – a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an international act. 3. Negligence – Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against other people. 4. Strict Liability – Liability without fault. Franco Chuquilin Business Law Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, Wed 1928 N.Y. Lexis 1269 Court of Appeals of New York, 1928 Key Facts * Mrs. Palsgraf was standing on a Long Island Railroad train platform when two men ran to catch a train. * The second man was carrying a small package containing fireworks. He was helped aboard the train by one guard on the platform and another on the train. The man dropped the package which exploded when it hit the tracks. * The shock of the explosion caused scales at the other end of the platform many feet away to fall, striking and injuring Palsgraf. * Palsgraf brought a personal injury lawsuit against Long Island Railroad and the railroad appealed the court’s judgment in favor of Palsgraf. * The judgment was affirmed on appeal and Long Island Railroad appealed. Issue - How is the duty of due care that is owed determined? To whom does a party owe the duty of due care? Rule - A duty that is owed must be determined from the risk that...
Words: 702 - Pages: 3
...I. CITATION Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) II. THE FACTS a. Material Helen Palsgraf was standing on a train platform waiting for a train. Another passenger was assisted by two railroad guards while attempting to board the moving train and he dropped the package he was carrying onto the tracks. The package was filled with fireworks and exploded causing scales to fall at the other end of the platform onto Ms. Palsgraf thus injuring her. b. Legal Ms. Palsgraf brought a personal injury suit against the Long Island Railroad. The court found in favor for Ms. Palsgraf. The Long Island Railroad appealed and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The Defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals which overturned the lower court’s decision. III. LEGAL ISSUES c. Specific Did the guards act in a manner that was negligent to the plaintiff when a assisting another man onto the moving train causing his package to fall, explode and cause injury to the plaintiff? d. General Was the harm resulting from this action reasonably able to be predicted? IV. THE HOLDING There was no negligence on the part of the guards. V. LEGAL RATIONALE Chief Justice Cordozo reasoned there “Here, by concession, there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage throughout the station. The Dissenting opinion argued that because negligence...
Words: 320 - Pages: 2
...Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. The case reading begins by explaining that a woman named Helen Palsgraf was awaiting a train on a station platform, when all of a sudden she noticed a man running toward a train that was leaving the station. The man who was attempting to board the train had a package in his hand. As the man leaped onto the train, a railroad guard on the train helped pull him aboard, while another railroad guard on the platform helped push him aboard. While all of this was occurring, the man happened to drop his package onto the railroad tracks, which then proceeded to explode. The explosion on the tracks caused scales on the platform to fall directly on Helen Palsgraf, causing physical injuries. There were no prior warnings that there were fireworks enclosed in the package. Palsgraf (the plaintiff) then decided to sue Long Island Railroad Company (the defendant) due to negligence. While the jury and the appellate court found that the railroad guards had been negligent, the railroad company appealed to New York’s highest state court (Clarkson, Miller, Cross 2014) In my opinion, the major question proposed in this case is “what constitutes negligence?”. Although Palsgraf claimed that the railroad guards were the proximate cause of her injuries, one may see this case differently. One may argue that this statement is incorrect because the incident and injuries sustained were unforeseeable, which would mean that Long Island Railroad Company was not...
Words: 654 - Pages: 3
...Palsgraf v. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief By: Jeffrey Boswell, Steven Casillas, Antwan Deligar & Randy Durham BMGT 380 Professor Eden Allyn 26 May 13 Facts The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, filed a suit against the Long Island Rail Road Company. The plaintiff claimed the Long Island Railroad Company’s negligence resulted in injury to her person. A passenger was attempting to board a moving train and lost his footing. The man looked as though he was going to fall. A guard reached out to help the man onto the train and another guard attempted to push him onto the train from behind. The man was carrying a box that was covered by a newspaper. As the guard reached to catch the man, the box was dislodged and fell on the tracks. Once the box hit the tracks it exploded and caused a chain reaction. On the other side of the platform the explosion caused scales to fall on the plaintiff. Issue The court must decide if the plaintiff’s rights were violated. Since she filled a suit of negligence against the Long Island Railroad Company she must prove four things. She must prove that the defendant owed her a duty of care. Second, she must prove that the defendants breached that duty. Third, the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that she suffered a legally recognizable injury (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2012, p. 136). Ruling The appeals court reversed the...
Words: 790 - Pages: 4
...NEGLIGENCE – DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE STANDARD NEGLIGENCE Negligence is the most common tort liability. Contrasted with intentional torts where there is a desire by the actor to cause some harmful result, negligence occurs without a desire to cause a harmful result by contact, but nonetheless does cause harm to the person being injured even without the desire. Simply put, negligence is conduct, and not a state of mind. It usually is associated with accidents or carelessness. An accident may be unavoidable if the occurrence was not intended and which, under all the circumstances, could not have been foreseen or prevented by the exercise of “reasonable” precautions. The central premise of negligence is that we all are members of a collective society that depend on a social order for the good of the community and to promote commerce. How members of the social community conduct themselves will impact other members both for the good and sometimes for the bad. Essentially, this is a “limited duty” all members have to other members to be “reasonably” careful in their conduct to avoid injury to others. When the duty implicit in the circumstances is breached and injury to another occurs, the injured person may recover damages to compensate them for their harm by proving that the conduct of the person causing the harm was negligent. Negligence rules attempt to strike a balance between properly compensating people for their injuries and protecting society and its members from frivolous...
Words: 3700 - Pages: 15
...Web Quiz Assignment Name: Meiners, The Legal Environment of Business, 9e, Chapter 6 Summary of Results Total Possible: 20.0Time Spent: 00:01:31 correct 7.00 35.00% incorrect 12.00 60.00% not answered 1.0 5.00% To email the results to your instructor(s), complete this form: E-mail results to: Additional message: Your first name: Your last name: Your email address: Required field -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Tort means: a. injury in Greek. b. a criminal offense. c. twisted or wrong. d. injury to a contract. status: correct (1.0) correct: c your answer: c feedback: Correct. From Latin and French. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Torts are defined by: a. common law courts. b. federal legislation. c. the U.S. Supreme Court. d. administrative agencies. status: correct (1.0) correct: a your answer: a feedback: Correct. They have no absolute meaning; the courts change what is a legal wrong over time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 The person who is accused of committing a tort is called: a. a criminal. b. a defendant. c. a negligentee. d. a tortfeasor. status: correct (1.0) correct: d your answer: d feedback: Correct. That is the person who...
Words: 1771 - Pages: 8
...Grade: A University of London LLB, 2nd year Tort Law Question Amber Valley Primary School was closed 6 months ago by Amber Borough Council (ABC), the local education authority, which owns all the land and buildings. The school has been standing empty while ABC attempts to find a buyer for the site. Although ABC placed fencing around the site, local residents reported that youths had broken into the site on a number of occasions. Last week a group of youths from a nearby young offenders institution, operated by Chigley Services Ltd (CS) under contract to the Home Office, broke into the disused school and set fire to it. The youths had been clearing rubbish from a neighbouring stream and were supposed to have been under the supervision of Justin and Jason, both of whom are CS employees. However, Justin and Jason had gone for a cigarette break and left the youths unsupervised at the time the break-in occurred. The fire caused damage to neighbouring property including a baker's shop owned by Mark. It is likely to be many weeks before the business can reopen and Mark stands to lose many thousands of pounds in lost profits. It later transpired that the fire would not have had time to spread to neighbouring property had the Fire Brigade acted more swiftly. The Amber Valley Fire engine was unavailable at the time and another engine had to be dispatched from Leicester. The crew got lost on the way because they put the wrong address in the sat-nav (satellite navigation)...
Words: 4446 - Pages: 18
...Business Law Midterm Fall 1999 Fall 1999 Professor Isler True/False Indicate whether the sentence or statement is true or false. ____ 1. The stability and predictability created by the law is essential to business activities. ____ 2. The federal government retains all powers not specifically delegated to the states. ____ 3. There is a specific guarantee of a right to privacy in the Constitution. ____ 4. Unintentionally causing a party to break a contract may constitute wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. ____ 5. Disparagement of property is another term for appropriation. ____ 6. The degree of care to be exercised in a situation can vary with a person's profession or occupation. ____ 7. The doctrine of strict liability applies only to abnormally dangerous activities. ____ 8. Trade dress has the same legal protection as trademarks. ____ 9. Counterfeiting constitutes forgery. ____ 10. Under the mailbox rule, an acceptance can be valid as soon as it is sent. Multiple Choice Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. ____ 11. Alan is a judge. The function of Alan and other judges is to |a. |decide cases on the basis of their opinions about the issues. | |b. |decide cases on the basis of their personal philosophical views. | |c. |interpret and apply the...
Words: 4014 - Pages: 17
...Course Description and Learning Objectives Every business decision has legal overtones and most business will be involved in some sort of legal action at some point in their progression. The goal of this course is to discuss issues faced by emerging businesses against the background of what the law can and cannot do. As each semester some new scandal or issue makes the press, we will use current events as a springboard for the topics covered in this course, and I invite you to bring your personal experiences into the classroom discussion. Course Requirements and Classroom Approach The class will be run as an interactive lecture. It is absolutely essential that all required readings are completed prior to class. We will have some flexibility (within reason) to tailor this class to real life experiences each of you may encounter or to certain areas that are of particular interest to this class. There is a lot of reading – I strongly recommend you take notes. Attendance is absolutely essential (and is 25% of your grade). We have a lot to cover and a short time to cover it. While the textbook is the primary source, there are supplemental readings and topics that will come up in class, including current events, which may well find their way into an exam. If you cannot attend, it is your obligation to ensure that you borrow someone’s notes so that you do not miss anything. Blackboard, e-mail and Lexis/Nexis Supplemental readings will usually be posted...
Words: 1139 - Pages: 5
...Midterm #2 • defamation - the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel. o slander - wrongfully hurting a person’s good reputation. Breaching this duty in orally involves the tort of standard ▪ Slander Per se – If a false statement constitutes “slander per se,” it is actionable with no proof of special damages required. In most states the following four types of declarations are considered to be slander per se: o LIABLE – wrongfully hurting a person’s good reputation. Breaching this duty in writing or in another permanent form (such as digital recording) • *TO ESTABLISH DEFAMATION; Plaintiff must normally prove the following: ▪ 1. The defendant made a false statement of fact ▪ 2. The statement was understood as being about the plainfiff and tended to harm the plaintiffs reputation ▪ 3. The statement was published to at least one person other than the plaintiff ▪ 4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, she or he must prove actual malice o defenses ▪ Truth is normally an absolute defense against defamation ▪ If he speech is privileged or concerns a public figure ▪ Privileged communications. • Privilege or immunity o public figures ▪ Politicians, entertainers, professional athletes, and others in the public eye are considered...
Words: 1059 - Pages: 5
...Business Law CIRCLE THE LETTER IN FRONT OF THE BEST ANSWER 1. John files a lawsuit against Mary for damages arising out of a breach of contract. This case is a(n): a. equitable action b. criminal proceeding c. civil lawsuit d. public law case 2. The highest source of law in the United States is: a. an executive order of the president b. an interstate compact c. the Unites States Constitution d. a state constitution 3. The ____________ is composed of a distinguished group of lawyers, judges and law teachers who have assumed the task of preparing “an orderly restatement of the general common law of the United States.” a. New York City Bar b. American Law Institute c. U.S. Supreme Court d. National Reporter System 4. Which of the following is NOT considered to be an equitable remedy? a. specific performance b. injunction c. reformation d. money damages 5. The person who files or commences a civil suit is the: a. plaintiff b. defendant c. prosecuting attorney d. attorney general 6. Larry is called for jury duty and is selected for possible service on a jury. However, when he is questioned by the defendant’s attorney during voir dire, he admits that he thinks the defendant is guilty based on news reports that he saw on the local television news. The defendant asks the judge to excuse Larry from serving on the jury and the judge agrees. a. This is a valid challenge...
Words: 1249 - Pages: 5
...Case 1: Specific Performance Remedy Denied on Equity Standard Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz et. al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THIRD CIRCUIT 172 F.2d 80 (1949) OPINION BY: GOODRICH The transactions which raise the issues may be briefly summarized. On June 21, 1947, Campbell Soup Company (Campbell), a New Jersey corporation, entered into a written contract with George B. Wentz and Harry T. Wentz, who are Pennsylvania farmers, for delivery by the Wentzes to Campbell of all the Chantenay red cored carrots to be grown on fifteen acres of the Wentz farm during the 1947 season . . . The contract provides . . . for delivery of the carrots at the Campbell plant in Camden, New Jersey. The prices specified in the contract ranged from $23 to $30 per ton according to the time of delivery. The contract price for January 1948 was $30 a ton. The Wentzes harvested approximately 100 tons of carrots from the fifteen acres covered by the contract. Early in January 1948, they told a Campbell representative that they would not deliver their carrots at the contract price. The market price at that time was at least $90 per ton, and Chantenay red cored carrots were virtually unobtainable. The Wentzes then sold approximately 62 tons of their carrots to . . . Lojeski, a neighboring farmer. Lojeski resold about 58 tons on the open market, approximately half to Campbell and the balance to other purchasers. On January 9, 1948, Campbell, suspecting that Lojeski was selling it "contract carrots," refused to...
Words: 42578 - Pages: 171
...COMPILATION OF CASE LAWS LAW OF TORT 1. DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932) AC 562 On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928, Mrs May Donoghue, boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty minute journey to Paisley. At around ten minutes to nine, she and a friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café in the town's Wellmeadow Place. They were approached by the café owner, Francis Minghella, and May's friend ordered and paid for a pear and ice and an iced drink. The owner brought the order and poured part of a bottle of ginger beer into a tumbler containing ice cream. May drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. On doing so, it was claimed that the remains of a snail in a state of decomposition plopped out of the bottle into the tumbler. May later complained of stomach pain, and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident. On 9th April 1929, Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, aerated water manufacturer Paisley, in which she claimed £500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer which had been manufactured by the defender. May had not ordered or paid for the drink herself, so there was no contractual relationship between May and the café owner. Tort law at this time did not allow for May to sue the café owner. There was a contractual relationship between him...
Words: 19909 - Pages: 80
...2 Negligence: The Basic Principles of Duty of Care The arrangement of this and subsequent chapters Negligence is a large and amorphous subject, and all parts of the law on it are interlocking. It is often difficult to understand one part without having studied the whole, and therefore in arranging the material I have decided to set out the basic principles first, leaving the more sophisticated developments until later. Accordingly the next three chapters on duty, standard of care, causation and remoteness of damage aim to explain the basic negligence action, principally in relation to an action for personal injuries or property damage where the concepts are easiest to understand. More difficult duty problems, such as liability for statements or for pure economic loss, will be dealt with later. Duty is but one element in the tort of negligence, for it must be shown that not only was the defendant under a duty towards the claimant to be careful, but also that he failed to achieve the required standard of care and that that failure caused the damage, and finally that the damage was not too remote a consequence of the act. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant such that he came under an obligation to use care towards him. This relationship is sometimes referred to as ‘proximity’. In cases of personal injury or damage to property the necessary relationship is established if the defendant ought...
Words: 19320 - Pages: 78
