Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Case Summary
Facts:
All facts in this case were established by the plaintiff in that the defendant called no witnesses and the plaintiff called seven witnesses (Palsgraf vs. Long Island RY. CO.). On August 24, 1924 between the hours of ten and eleven in the morning, the plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, along with her two daughters were at the East New York station waiting to board a train. This station is owned and operated by the Long Island Railroad Company that is organized in the state of New York. A large crowd of people was gathered at the station that morning. Approximately five minutes after arriving at the station, Ms. Palsgraf was standing near a scale on the platform with her daughter several feet away from where the explosion would occur. Two unidentified males rushed to board the train as it was leaving the station. One of the males successfully boarded the …show more content…
Long Island Railroad). Negligence is the legal term given to actions that breach the duty of care that one owes another according to the law. The court considered that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to Helen Palsgraf, and therefore no negligence was committed. The court found that the risk of the harm was unforeseeable. According to The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, “If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists” (2014, pg.224). The court found that the actions which occurred were not only unforeseeable in to the objective observer, but also to Helen Palsgraf. This is to say that the risk was unforeseeable to an objective or reasonably subjective person in her position. The court found that the proximity of the plaintiff to the cause of action was irrelevant. Long Island Railroad actions or inactions caused no negligence to Helen Palsgraf. Even if there was negligence toward someone else, this is not a basis for a claim by Helen
All facts in this case were established by the plaintiff in that the defendant called no witnesses and the plaintiff called seven witnesses (Palsgraf vs. Long Island RY. CO.). On August 24, 1924 between the hours of ten and eleven in the morning, the plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, along with her two daughters were at the East New York station waiting to board a train. This station is owned and operated by the Long Island Railroad Company that is organized in the state of New York. A large crowd of people was gathered at the station that morning. Approximately five minutes after arriving at the station, Ms. Palsgraf was standing near a scale on the platform with her daughter several feet away from where the explosion would occur. Two unidentified males rushed to board the train as it was leaving the station. One of the males successfully boarded the …show more content…
Long Island Railroad). Negligence is the legal term given to actions that breach the duty of care that one owes another according to the law. The court considered that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to Helen Palsgraf, and therefore no negligence was committed. The court found that the risk of the harm was unforeseeable. According to The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, “If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists” (2014, pg.224). The court found that the actions which occurred were not only unforeseeable in to the objective observer, but also to Helen Palsgraf. This is to say that the risk was unforeseeable to an objective or reasonably subjective person in her position. The court found that the proximity of the plaintiff to the cause of action was irrelevant. Long Island Railroad actions or inactions caused no negligence to Helen Palsgraf. Even if there was negligence toward someone else, this is not a basis for a claim by Helen