...Helen Palsgraf was standing on a Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) platform in New York City, waiting for a train to take her and her two daughters. While she was waiting for her train, another train pulled in, and two passengers came running across the platform to catch it. One of the passengers was carrying a package under his arm. The train began leaving the platform, and two LIRR employees (one on the train, one on the ground) attempted to help the passengers get on board while the train was moving. As they pulled the passengers onto the train, the package fell to the platform. Unbeknownst to the railroad workers, the package contained fireworks. The men were on their way to a celebration in Queens, and had brought several rockets with them to light up. As soon as the package hit the ground, it exploded. The explosion could be heard several blocks away; a stampede erupted on the crowded platform as people began running. Palsgraf, at the other end of the platform, was not hurt by the explosion itself. Rather, the explosion knocked over a large scale next to Palsgraf, which fell on her and struck her in the arm, hip, and thigh. She was able to walk with great difficulty, but was unable to continue her job as a housekeeper, and began suffering from shock-related symptoms a few days later, including stuttering. Palsgraf prepared the case against the Long Island Railroad. LIRR argued that its employees had not been negligent in the events that led up to Palsgraf's injury. They...
Words: 1626 - Pages: 7
...monetary damages. 2. International 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
...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
...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
...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
...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
...Buss Law: Lindgren vs. GDT, LLC (96-98) Plaintiff: Lindgren/GDT, LLC Defendant: GDT, LLC/ Lindgren Facts: Lindgren came-up with an accessory concept, which she sold online and in a store in Iowa. She patented it in 2000. GDT started selling a product quite similar to hers at much higher prices through all of its distribution channels. When Lindgren found out she filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Iowa against GDT for infringement. GDT, claiming that it has no affiliation with the State, expressed its right to exercise its in personam jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss the case in Iowa. Yet, Lindgren countered by stipulating that online the company gave the option of delivering its products to Iowa (with FedEx). Ruling: Lindgren failed to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Yet, the court found that Lindgren’s claim could continue in the central district of California. GDT’s motion to dismiss was denied. Judicial Opinion: Due process requires that in order to subject a non-resident to the jurisdiction of a state’s court, the latter should have a certain minimum contact with it. The contacts with the state should be more than ‘random’, ‘fortuitous’ or ‘attenuated’. Use of a precedent: Zippo manufacturing case. The Zippo court observed that the likelihood that the personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and the quality of the commercial activity that an entity conducts over the...
Words: 4325 - Pages: 18
...Chapter 8—Negligence and Strict Liability TRUE/FALSE 1. A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence. ANS: T MSC: AACSB Analytic 2. In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental handicaps. ANS: T MSC: AACSB Analytic 3. A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults. ANS: F MSC: AACSB Analytic 4. A person who falls asleep while driving would not be liable for any resulting injury since it would be an unavoidable accident. ANS: F MSC: AACSB Analytic 5. The standard of conduct which serves as the basis for the law of negligence is usually determined on a cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis. ANS: T MSC: AACSB Analytic 6. A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent. ANS: T MSC: AACSB Analytic 7. The general rule for the standard of care used in tort law is: a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons and their property. ANS: T MSC: AACSB Analytic 8. Compliance with a legislative enactment or administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence if a reasonable person would...
Words: 8327 - Pages: 34
...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
...Case 9.1 Facts: Palsgraf was standing on a railroad platform buying ticket. When train stopped two man ran to catch train. On of them fell, and two railroad employees tried to help this man. A package with fireworks fell on the ground and exploded. Plaintiff was injured because of the explosion. Issue: Was the railroad company liable for Ms. Palsgraf’s injury? Or. Was Ms. Palsgraf’s injury a reasonably foreseeable injury? Rule: Negligence requires that a person with a duty of care, breach that duty and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff. Proximate cause requires that the injury to the plaintiff be a reasonably foreseeable risk of the breach of duty. Analysis: Plaintiff had no prove that package had fireworks in it and when dropped it could cause a explosion. In that case Plaintiff had to show that there was violation of her rights. Employees who were trying to help one of the passengers were negligent in explosion. The explosion caused scales at the end of the platform fall on plaintiff. However employees were not negligent in relation to the plaintiff, who was far away from the accident. Is passenger at the other end of the platform protected by the Law against the unsuspected hazard concealed beneath the waste? If not, is the result to be any different, so far as the distant passenger is concerned, when the guard stumbles over a valise, which a truck man or a porter has left upon the walk? The conduct of the defendant’s...
Words: 321 - Pages: 2
...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
...Elements of Negligence Negligence claims are successful if the plaintiff can be able to prove all the elements required for a successful action in a court of law. Failure to prove all the elements will result to the suit being defeated on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence. A plaintiff has got to: a). Prove a duty of care. This is outlined in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, [1932] SC (HL) 31 which set precedent of fault principle in Common law. b). Breach of duty. A plaintiff must show that the defendant knowingly exposed the plaintiff to a loss or risk that is substantial. This should include overlooking acts that a reasonable person would have done to avert the risk but the defendant failed to do. This is illustrated in the case of Bolton v Stone 1 K.B. 201 (C.A. 1950). c). Factual Causation or Direct Cause. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s omissions and acts directly caused the damages or losses that were suffered. d). Harm. Even if a plaintiff can successfully prove all the above, he has to prove that he suffered some harm as a result of the defendants negligence. The negligence must have caused a pecuniary injury. Case against the Hotel The hotel owed a duty of care to all its customers. Provision of security by the hotel justifies this point. Clients are not asked to provide their own security by the hotel. The hotel breached this duty by failing to realize that intruders got into the hotel and unlocked the hotel room doors...
Words: 864 - Pages: 4
...Torts and the more progressive Restatement (Third) Torts: Product Liability vantage points. A. Introduction 1) History 2) Role fault-based torts today 3) Role of product liability today B. Negligence 1) Five Elements of the prima facie case 1. Duty 2. Breach 3. Actual cause 4. Proximate cause 5. Damage 2) Damages available 3) Duty 1. Nature of Duty 2. Nature of Right 3. Due of Care 4. Reasonable Person Test a. Uniform standard of behavior b. Test: What a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstances i. Consideration of physical characteristics ii. Consideration of knowledge iii. Factors iv. Role of Foreseeabilty v. CASE: Palsgraf: Justice Cardozo writes that a defendant is liable only if the danger is foreseeable. This portion of...
Words: 687 - Pages: 3
...How to Avoid 4 Common Negligence Mistakes on Torts Essays Wednesday, December 5, 2012 California Bar Applicants, Welcome to the latest issue of our California Bar Exam newsletter. For those of you preparing for the February 2013 exam or looking ahead to the July 2013 California bar exam, we consider the following in this issue: • Important Upcoming California Bar Exam Dates • Recent BarReviewSolutions.com California Bar Exam News & Announcements • California Bar Exam Essays In-Depth: How to Avoid Common Mistakes with Negligence on Torts Essays • California Bar Exam Newsletter Discount Important Upcoming California Bar Exam Dates ________________________________________ • Final Filing Deadline for February 2013 Exam: January 15, 2013 • California Bar Exam: February 26-28, 2013 Recent BarReviewSolutions.com California Bar Exam News & Announcements ________________________________________ A few spots remain for our February 2013 Ultimate program via Expedited Scheduling. Begin today... Just starting a February 2013 review or thinking ahead to the July 2013 California bar exam? Start your review off on the right track with our FREE Improve Your Bar Review Guide (2013 Edition). Obtain your copy today... For repeaters, July 2012 Assessments are now available. Sign-up today and learn from your prior exam mistakes as you prepare for an upcoming exam... California Bar Exam Essays In-Depth: How to Avoid Common Mistakes with Negligence on Torts Essays ________________________________________ ...
Words: 1105 - Pages: 5
