Tanisha Butler Ms. Baca 7/5/2017 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Citation: 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Facts: Helen Palsgraf, the Plaintiff, was stationary on a railroad platform buying a ticket. A train stopped and two men rushed toward the front to catch it. One of the men almost fell, and two railroad workers tried to help him. While trying to help the man, some fireworks fell out and blew up. Due to the disturbance of the eruption, some scales at the other end of the railroad platform fell and hit the Plaintiff causing injuries. The Plaintiff sued Long Island R.R. (Defendant) and the jury found her to be in good standing. The New York Supreme Court declared the trial court’s holding that the Defendant was accountable for the injuries that the Plaintiff suffered from. The Defendant ended up appealing the court’s decision. Issue: Different opinions convey that it isn’t firm that the Defendant’s actions were not the exact cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Justice Andrews concluded that the judgment should’ve been presented with more assertion. One of the most notable dissents in contemporary tort law, Justice Andrews in Palsgraf (Plaintiff) conveys what has become the matrix of one’s responsibilities and its connection to …show more content…
Judge Andrews dissented, stating that “negligence is a relative concept and proposed that every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others.” Negligence is not a wrongful act unless it’s a consequence in a task of a wrong by contravening one’s right. Because, the injury to plaintiff was not intentional by the defendant, it had to be shown that dropping a package was an obvious possibility of danger. Since the package was unmarked, there wasn’t any negligence to be found, therefore the Defendant was also not the immediate cause of plaintiff’s