Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligencesustained
defendantnegligencesustained

Related Cases

Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1514
View Case »
United States ex rel. Holmes v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12166185
View Case »
Moore v. Crone, 114 Conn.App. 443, 970 A.2d 757, 58 A.L.R.6th 769
View Case »
Messing v. FDI, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 776, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,217
View Case »
Cascades Branding Innovation, LLC v. Walgreen Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1570774
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99

Facts

Helen Palsgraf was waiting on a platform for a train after purchasing a ticket. As a train bound for another destination was departing, two men attempted to board it. One man, carrying a package, was helped by a guard who pushed him from behind, causing the package to fall onto the tracks. The package, which contained fireworks, exploded, and the resulting shock caused scales at the other end of the platform to fall and injure Palsgraf.

Helen Palsgraf was waiting on a platform for a train after purchasing a ticket. As a train bound for another destination was departing, two men attempted to board it.

Issue

Did the actions of the railroad's employees constitute negligence that would make the railroad liable for the injuries sustained by Palsgraf?

Did the actions of the railroad's employees constitute negligence that would make the railroad liable for the injuries sustained by Palsgraf?

Rule

Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, and a duty must be owed to the individual complaining. The court must determine if the defendant's actions were a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, and a duty must be owed to the individual complaining.

Analysis

The court found that the actions of the railroad's employees did not create a foreseeable risk of harm to Palsgraf, who was standing at a distance from the incident. The package's contents were not apparent, and there was no indication that the employees' actions posed a danger to her. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no breach of duty owed to Palsgraf, and thus no negligence.

The court found that the actions of the railroad's employees did not create a foreseeable risk of harm to Palsgraf, who was standing at a distance from the incident.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the defendant was not liable for Palsgraf's injuries.

The court reversed the judgment of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the defendant was not liable for Palsgraf's injuries.

Who won?

Long Island Railroad Company prevailed in the case because the court determined that there was no negligence on the part of its employees that could be linked to the injuries suffered by Palsgraf.

Long Island Railroad Company prevailed in the case because the court determined that there was no negligence on the part of its employees that could be linked to the injuries suffered by Palsgraf.

You must be