Justice Cardozo Justice Cardozo wrote the opinion for the case. Cardozo ruled against the plaintiff, saying that the railroad cannot be held accountable for the unfortunate explosion. His argument is that the train conductors could not have possibly known that the package the passenger was carrying would be dangerous. He also argues that one’s actions cannot be negligent if the dangers are not known prior to the choice made. In relation to our fact pattern, the choice to pull the passenger up onto the train and for the other to push him was made, and there was no way to know that, first his belongings would go flying, or even what the contents of his items were. Cardozo’s other main point is that the defendant could not sue the conductor who pushed the passenger. He did not owe her any duty at the time of the incident, therefore filing against …show more content…
His stance on the matter was that there was a direct correlation between Palsgraf’s injuries and the actions of the conductors, despite was Justice Cardozo said in the opinion. The actions of pulling the passenger up and pushing him up onto the train cause the explosion that she was injured as a result of. He dissents with Justice Cardozo in saying that there is in fact a connection between the conductors and Mrs. Palsgraf. Justice Cardozo is arguing that she was an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was injured in an unfortunate accident. Justice Andrews argues that she was a passenger of the train as well, and thus the conductors owed her the same as they did with the man whom the pushed and pulled to get on board the train. As a passenger and client of the railway, she should expect to be treated respectfully and properly, and that duty was breached by the train conductors when she was injured while at the station during the explosion caused by the conductors’ actions of pushing and pulling another passenger on board a train