{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Palsgraf v. Long Island RR - Rule For there to be proximate...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. 248 N.Y. 339 Fact: Operative Facts: In a train station, a train was about to leave and a man was running for the train, while it was moving. The train worker was opening the door, saw him hopping on and was about to lose balance. He pulled the man up, as another train worker pushed the man up. He dropped his package, which seemed to be a bunch of newspaper, so the worker kicked I down to the rails. Under the newspapers were fireworks, which ignited after contact with the ground, shaking the train station. A lady in the far end of the train station was standing idle, when the scale fell on her, due to the shake. She is suing the railroad company. Issue: Whether the Rail road company had proximate cause towards the unfortunate event
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rule: For there to be proximate cause, there plaintiff must have been reasonably able to foresee, such an incident would occur Rational: Without proximate cause, holding another liable for something they could not reasonable foresee is not something the courts want to do. It doesn’t deter people from doing things if they are unable to foresee that they could be punished for doing so. Holding: Broad: If it is unreasonable to foresee that doing something would lead to something bad/other thing to happen, then there is no proximate cause. Narrow: Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Dissent: states that it should be given to the jury, not for the courts to decide if that was not already a proximate cause....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}