Case Brief 7.2 - gent and Long Island Railroad appealed the...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Michael Knutson (11040656) Lindsey 4 March 2010 Business Law 215 Case Brief 7.2: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Background: Helen Palsgraf, the plaintiff, was waiting for her train when a man, carrying a seemingly ordinary package, ran to catch his train as it pulled away from the platform. The man jumped on to the train with the assistance of two railroad guards. In the process of getting on the train, the package the man was carrying fell onto the railroad tracks. Unfortunately this package contained fireworks, which exploded and caused scales to fall on Palsgraf and injure her. Pals- graf sued the railroad company for negligence. The court found the railroad company to be negli-
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: gent, and Long Island Railroad appealed the decision to the appellate court where the same ver-dict was reached. The decision was appealed again to New York’s highest state court. Issue: Was the defendant, Long Island Railroad Co., negligent in their actions, as they pertained to Palsgraf? Holding: No Reasoning: Negligence must involve some risk that was foreseeable by the tortfeasor. There was no way of the railroad guards knowing that the package contained explosives, much less that they would be able to cause such damage that falling debris would injure a customer of the rail-way....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 210 taught by Professor Mumford during the Spring '08 term at Washington State University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online