Torts Assignment: Analysis of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Case

This case study examines the landmark case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., focusing on the principles of tort law, specifically negligence and proximate cause. The assignment summarizes the facts of the case, where a woman was injured by falling scales at a train station due to a chain of events initiated by a railway employee. The central issue revolved around determining the defendant's liability based on foreseeability and the extent of their duty of care. The analysis outlines the rules established in Palsgraf, particularly the concept of a foreseeable zone of danger. The study then presents hypothetical scenarios, one where the defendant would be held liable, and another where they would not, using Palsgraf as the guiding standard. The conclusion reinforces the court's emphasis on the predictability of risk in establishing a duty of care, and its impact on determining liability in negligence cases.

Running head: CASE STUDY 0
tort law
JANUARY 10, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

CASE STUDY 1
Case: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
Facts of the case-
The claimant, Helen Palsgraf was standing on the platform of the railway station to
wait for her train. At that time, two person were running to catch their train. One of them
slipped at the platform of railway station. The guard of railroad on car came forward and
other guard pushed that man to catch his train. The man had pack full of fireworks. When
trying to help that man, then staff of railway station triggered the fireworks box to drop and
the fireworks to blast. The blast caused the set of scale to fall at other side of the station
platform, which in turn harmed the claimant. At the time of first occurrence, the court gave
decision in favour of applicant and decision was confirmed on appeal. The case was appealed
by offender to the Supreme Court of United States of America (Porto, 2015).
Issue of the case-
The issue of case was related to the idea of inaccessibility of damages in respect of the
English law, though this is stated as setting out the particulars essential for the claims in
carelessness to be taken (Silbert, 2015). The issue was what establishes the negligence and
can the defendant be accountable for the negligence for acts, which may not be rationally
expected?
Rules set forth in Palsgraf-
The risks reasonably to be perceived describe the obligations to be followed and risks
import relations; these are risks to others in anxiety range. It does not mean that the person

CASE STUDY 2
who introduces the critical force is reassured of liabilities, if force, however recognized to be
critical, follows the unforeseen way. This is not essential that the offender must have
notification of specific way where the accidents will happen, if the chances of the accidents
were clear to the commonly cautious eye. There are certain acts like shooting, which are very
risky to the person who can come in range of bullet, however unpredictably, as to levy the
obligation of prevision not far from that of the insurer. The obligation, which is due, should
be determined from risks that may rationally be predicted as per the conditions. Moreover,
the defendant owes obligation of care only to the people who are in the rationally predictable
area of the risks (Webb, 2016).
Facts in which the defendant will be held liable-
This case is result of the nature of negligence. The point to be considered is that is
this the breach of certain obligations due to the specific individual or to the group of specific
persons? Other considerable point is whether this is act unjustly makes threats of protection
to others. Wherever there are unfair actions, and certain rights, which can be influenced there
is carelessness whether damages do or do not result. Shall people drive down broad way at
the inattentive pace; that is neglectful whether people strike the making approach vehicle or
overlook just by inch. This action is itself not rightful. This is incorrect not only to the people
who may be in range of risk but also to all who may have there. The defendant had the box
full of fireworks. It was very wrong to the public at great (Kerr, 2015).
It is a duty of everyone abstaining from the acts, which can unfairly threaten
protection of public. In case where any person gets injury from unfair action of others, then
they are accountable for the penalty. It does not matter that the actions are unexpected or
random. While injuries result from our unlawful act, we are liable for the consequences. It

CASE STUDY 3
does not matter that they are unusual, unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable. However,
one restriction is that the penalty should be related to negligence that the later could be said to
be an immediate reason of earlier. The defendant was liable for the harmful package fall at
the platform. That was considered as a negligent. It can say that the explosion was not the
direct reason of injury of plaintiff (Green & DiMuzio, 2018).
Facts in which the defendant will not be held liable-
The arguments for the plaintiff are made on shifting the meaning of terms- wrong and
wrongful, and share the volatility. What the plaintiff must show is the wrong to herself such
as contravention of rights, and not only wrong to others, nor behavior wrongful, but not
wrong to others. Negligence such as risk is a word of relations. The negligence in theoretical
way is certainly not the tort, but definitely, it is comprehensible in any way. The person who
looks for remedy at laws does not create the reason of act by stating without more that there
have been damages to an individual. In the case where harm is not with intention, then the
person cannot be held liable, in this case, the intention of defendant was not to harm
someone. He was not aware about that danger or risk. The harm was unintended. These facts
state that defendant will not be held liable in this case (Epstein, 2016).
Conclusion
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that it was held by the court that
according to the prediction test, this was not reasonable to hold that the alleged negligence of
railroad was the reason of the harms of the travellers. It concluded that the obligation of care
should be determined from the risks, which can be rationally predicted. The Long Island

CASE STUDY 4
Railroad Company might not have rationally predicted that the set comprised explosives and
posed the fear to any person. This was an explosion, which was contiguous reason of an
injury, and the railroad might not have practically anticipated such the tragedy.

CASE STUDY 5
References
Epstein, N. (2016). Memories of Long Ago: My Years at UCLA School of Law. Cal. Legal
Hist., 11, 415.
Green, M. D., & DiMuzio, A. (2018). Cardozo and the Civil Jury. TOURO L. REV., 34, 183.
Kerr, A. (2015). Meta-stories and Missing Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Porto, B. (2015). Six Simple Steps to Improved Writing. Vt. BJ, 41, 34.
Silbert, R. G. (2015). Torts-Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress-Maine and Michigan
Abolish the" Impact Rule". DePaul Law Review, 20(4), 1029.
Webb, N. (2016). Assuming the Risk of Death: Implications of the Olivia Brown Case. Duke
FL & Soc. Change, 8, 59.