If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on palsgraph. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality palsgraph paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in palsgraph, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your palsgraph paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service!
Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad
Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail is one of the most influential court cases of the 1th century. The case tested the rules of negligence. The case was first heard in a jury court and the jury sided with the plantiff. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals of New York, There the Appelate division was divided.
The case was argued on Febuary 4, 18, in the Courts of Appeal of New York. The dividing Appelant was Pound, Lehman, Kellogg, who concurred with Justice Cardozo. Craine, O'Brien concurred with Andrews.
The case concerned an intending passenger who stood on the platform at the station waiting for her train's arrival. During this time another passenger bound for a different train rushed to board his train that was already in motion. The man was carrying a small package covered by a newspaper as he was attempting to board the moving train. The man as he was attempting to catch the train became seemingly unsteady as if he was about to fall. A guard of the car reached forward to help the man in and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. During this time the package was dislodged and fell upon the rails. The package actually contained fireworks ( there was nothing in the appearance that gave notice of its contents.) The package exploded when it hit the rails, and caused several scales to fall at the other end of the platform several feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sued (www.courts.stateny.com)
Buy cheap palsgraph term paper
Justice Cardozzo represented the majority opinnon. He stated that " the conduct of the guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away." Relatively to her it was not negligence at all (www.Courts.Stateny.com). There was nothing in the situation that gave notice to the falling package. No one knew that the content of the package would result in a peril situation. The appellate argued that "negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right" (Pollock, torts 11th edition.)
"The hazard was not apparent to the eye of the ordinary, an act that was innocent and harmless, atleast to outward seeing, with reference to her, did not take itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong, apparently not on involving the risk of bodily insecurity, which reference to someone else" ( McSherry.) "In every instance, before negligence can be predicted if a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observation of which would have averted or avoided the injury" (www.courts.stateny.com)
The appellant side concluded that "the law of causation, remote or proximate, is foreign to the case that was being presented to them. The question of liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability. If there is no tort to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be recoverd if there were a finding of a tort. We may assume, with out deciding, that negligence, not at large or in the abstract, but in relation to the plaintiff, would entail liability for any or all consequences" (www.courts.stateny.com). That negligent conduct is that it threatens the interest of other orders. There the judgment was that the trial should be revered, and the complaint dismissed.
The dissenting, Justice Andrews questioned, that upon the facts presented may the plaintiff recover the damages she suffered? The result he felt would depend upon the theory as to the nature of negligence. "it is a relative concept the breach of some duty owing to particular person or to particular persons?" (Andrews). Andrews also questioned, "Where there is an act which unreasonably threatens the safety of others, is the doer liable for all its proximate consequences even where they result in injury to one who would generally be thought to be outside the radius of danger?
"Negligence may be defined roughly as an act or omission which unreasonably does or may affect the rights of others, or which unreasonably fails to protect oneself from the dangers resulting from such acts" (www.courts.stateny.com.) Andrews confined himself to the first branch of the definition. Nor did he comment on the word "unreasonably". For present purposes he stated " it sufficiently describes that average of conduct that society requires of its members" (www.courts.stateny.com.)
Andrews argued that Mrs. Palsgraf should recover because the railroad employees had given the man who dropped the fireworks a boost to help him board the train. The fireworks were the cause of Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries (Kenneth Elovitz, Energy Economics Inc.) "The act upon which defendant's liability rests is knocking an apparently harmless package onto the platform. The act was negligent, for its proximate consequences the defendant is liable" (www.courts.stateny.com)
The dissenting side concluded that the appellant in his brief did state "it cannot be denied that the explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff injuries." Therefore, the explosion was the factor that ended in the result. There was a natural and continuous sequence. That the explosion as in this case, needed no great foresight to predict that it would result in the injury of a person or persons on the platform.
The case was decided on may , 18 (www.courts.stateny.com) Four to three gave the appellant side and Justice Cardozo the win. Justice Cardozo then stated that the plaintiff could not recover against the railroad because the railroads employee's didn't intend to harm anyone. Cardozo reasoned the "risk imports relation it is the risk to another or to others with in the range of apprehension." "What we do mean by the word "Proximate" is that, because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point"(www.courts.stateny.com)
In my opinion, I feel that the appellant side of the appeals court was right. Justice Cardozo made a valiant point. The workers at the railroad station had no intent to harm any person at the station that day. The guards were doing there job and while saving the mans life had no idea his package had fireworks. If they did not help him he probably would've fell on the tracks and died.
At the same time though you could say they were negligent in the way they checked the package. Stepping back and looking at the time period it took place in. It wasn't one in which people couldn't trust others and terrorism was not known of at the time. I'm sure there were many people that day who were carrying packages that closely resembled that of which the man who had the fireworks was carrying.
After giving points supporting both sides I feel there is overwhelming evidence for the appellate side. For instance say the man dropped the package trying to jump on the train himself with out the guards help. The same injuries would have happened. How then would you be able to blame the railroad?
A similar situation would be if an employee at a company stuck a gun in and shot his fellow workers. Is the company going to be charged with murder? NO. The man would be brought up on the charges and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not many people would believe it's the companies' fault.
Every day there are unintended injuries due to accidents. People don't sue highway departments when they get into a car accident even though it took place on the highway. They sue the driver. If Palsgraff wanted to get money from anyone I feel she should've sued the man with the package. It was his negligence that caused this accident. The Railroad was at no fault and although it wasn't a landslide decision it was overturned and ruled in the defendants favor. I feel the court of Appeals of New York served justice right.
Please note that this sample paper on palsgraph is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on palsgraph, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on palsgraph will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
