3423492224 - 248 NY 339*339 HELEN PALSGRAF Respondent v The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
248 NY 339 [*339] HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent, v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. Negligence — Railroads — Passengers — Package carried by passenger, dislodged while guards were helping him board train, and which falling to track exploded — Plaintiff, an intending passenger standing on platform many feet away, injured as result of explosion — Complaint in action against railroad to recover for injuries dismissed. A man carrying a package jumped aboard a car of a moving train and, seeming unsteady as if about to fall, a guard on the car reached forward to help him in and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind, during which the package was dislodged and falling upon the rails exploded, causing injuries to plaintiff, an intending passenger, who stood on the platform many feet away. There was nothing in the appearance of the package to give notice that it contained explosives. In an action by the intending passenger against the railroad company to recover for such injuries, the complaint should be dismissed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right, and the conduct of the defendant's guards, if a wrong in relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff standing many feet away. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 222 App. Div. 166, reversed. (Argued February 24, 1928; decided May 29, 1928.) APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, [*340] entered December 16, 1927, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. William McNamara and Joseph F. Keany for appellant. Plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries were caused by negligence of the defendant and it was error for the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. (Paul v. Cons. Fireworks Co., 212 N. Y. 117; Hall v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 214 N. Y. 49; Perry v. Rochester Lime Co., 219 N. Y. 60; Pyne v. Cazenozia Canning Co., 220 N. Y. 126; Adams v. Bullock, 227 N. Y. 208; McKinney v. N. Y. Cons. R. R. Co., 230 N. Y. 194; Palsey v. Waldorf Astoria, Inc., 220 App. Div. 613; Parrott v. Wells Fargo & Co., 15 Wall. 524; A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. v. Calhoun,
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
213 U. S. 1; Prudential Society, Inc., v. Ray, 207 App. Div. 496; 239 N. Y. 600.) Matthew W. Wood for respondent. The judgment of affirmance was amply sustained by the law and the facts. (Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425; Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469; Lowery v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 198; Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Trapp v. McClellan, 68 App. Div. 362; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N. Y. 83;
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 13

3423492224 - 248 NY 339*339 HELEN PALSGRAF Respondent v The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online