In the case Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad‚ 248 N.Y. 339‚ 162 N.E. 99‚ 1928 N.Y.Lexis 1269 (N.Y.)‚ Justice Cardoza denied recovery for the plaintiff. Justice Cardoza found that the railroad was not the proximate cause of Helen Palsgraf’s injuries. The concept of proximate cause is one that is less than precise. In today’s world of business can we still be sure that the reasoning used by Cardoza still applies? Has a new standard developed? In reviewing the materials in the text you should be
Premium Causality Law Tort law
Case Study of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Andrew William Pence Liberty University Abstract Palsgraf was severely injured due to a blast that shook the railroad station. The unmarked package of fireworks that was dropped by another party boarding a moving train caused the explosion. The explosion caused large iron scales to fall on Plasgrof. As a result‚ Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad for the conductor’s negligence‚ whom she blames for pulling the commuter on the train. Which
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Law New York
17‚ 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS (Palsgraf v. LIRR‚ p. 224) The Plaintiff‚ Ms. Palsgraf was trying to purchase a ticket at a railroad‚ when a man carrying a package rushed to board a train. This train was owned by the long island railroad. Two railroad employees tried to help him. In the process‚ the package containing fireworks fell and the contents exploded. As a result of the explosion‚ some scales at the other end of the platform fell and hit the Plaintiff. Ms. Palsgraf sued the train station and a
Premium United States Law Rail transport
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
Premium Law
1) Citation Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co 248 N.Y. 339‚ 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Court of Appeals of New York 2) Key facts a. The plaintiff‚ Helen Palsgraf‚ was waiting for a train on a station platform. b. A man carrying a package was rushing to catch a train that was moving away from a platform across the tracks from Palsgraf. c. As the man attempted to jump aboard the moving train‚ he seemed unsteady and about to fall. d. A railroad guard on the car reached forward to grab him and another guard
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson New Orleans United States
Helen Palsgraf‚ Respondent‚ v. The Long Island Railroad Company‚ Appellant Facts A passenger carrying a package‚ while hurrying to catch and board a moving Long Island Rail Road train‚ appeared to two of the railroad’s (Defendant’s) employees to be falling. The employees were guards‚ one of whom was located on the car‚ the other of whom was located on the platform. The guard on the car attempted to pull the passenger into the car and the guard on the platform attempted to push him into the
Premium Tort Law Tort law
On February 24‚ 1928 the Court of Appeals of New York first heard the agreement of Helen Palsgraf verses The Long Island Railroad company‚ appellant. After three long month of hearing both parties argument the majority ruled that the railroad is not liable for Palsgraf’s injuries because the injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the railroads negligence’s. The opposing side argued that if the duty can be traced back to the wrongful act that it is sufficient enough to establish
Premium Law Tort Common law
Helen Palsgraf‚ Respondent‚ v. The Long Island Railroad Company‚ Appellant [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Court of Appeals of New York 248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253 February 24‚ 1928‚ Argued May 29‚ 1928‚ Decided Facts: The plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was standing at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train. Suddenly‚ a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform
Premium Law
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel‚ Inc. 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967) Facts: The plaintiff‚ Fisher‚ was a guest invited to a luncheon held at the Carrousel Motor Hotel (the “Carrousel”) with his other associates. While Fisher was about to be served and approached to Flynn‚ the manager of the Carrousel‚ Flynn snatched the plate from Fisher’s hand and shouted that “he‚ a Negro‚ could not be served in the club.” Fisher was not physically touched nor did he suffer fear or apprehension of physical injury
Premium Jury Legal terms Court
Helen Palsgraf‚ Respondent‚ v The Long Island Railroad Company‚ Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24‚ 1928 Decided May 29‚ 1928 248 NY 339 CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. [*340] OPINION OF THE COURT CARDOZO‚ Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant ’s railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station‚ bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the
Premium Tort Law Negligence