Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Case Summary
Pfeffel Djanie
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 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 jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed the decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After this incident Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island railroad co. for negligence. She sued for the compensation of her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. She won at the circuit court. Ms. Palsgraf argued that the negligence was the pushing and pulling of the man with the package, but she did not argue that the scales had been …show more content…
9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
The long Island co. took the case to the New York supreme court. This time Judge Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case.
STUDENT ANALYSIS
I am in agreeance of the final decision. Since Ms. Palsgraf sued for negligence of the guys pushing and pulling the man with the fireworks, she shouldn’t win. This is because the employees had no idea of what was in the box. I understand why the first two decisions went in Ms. Palsgraf’s way. She was injured so the courts wanted to grant her some money for her pain and probably emotional
BUS 215-030
Assignment #1 – Ch. 9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 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 jury found in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, but the Court of Appeals of New York reversed the decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After this incident Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island railroad co. for negligence. She sued for the compensation of her injuries in the Kings County, New York State Circuit Court. She won at the circuit court. Ms. Palsgraf argued that the negligence was the pushing and pulling of the man with the package, but she did not argue that the scales had been …show more content…
9 Case Opener, pp. 224
September 17, 2017
The long Island co. took the case to the New York supreme court. This time Judge Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case.
STUDENT ANALYSIS
I am in agreeance of the final decision. Since Ms. Palsgraf sued for negligence of the guys pushing and pulling the man with the fireworks, she shouldn’t win. This is because the employees had no idea of what was in the box. I understand why the first two decisions went in Ms. Palsgraf’s way. She was injured so the courts wanted to grant her some money for her pain and probably emotional