Unreasonable risk being taken, its consequences are not confined to those who might probably be hurt. Such the language of the courts when speaking of contributory negligence. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents.
Negligence cannot impose liability where an intentional act would not. We have in a somewhat different connection spoken of "the stream of events. Again, however, we may trace it part of the way. Two men ran forward to catch it. The act upon which defendant's liability rests is knocking an apparently harmless package onto the platform.
A majority of courts prefer to leave foreseeability—even as a part of duty—to the jury. Andrews of Syracuse was a year-old  judge, noted for his scholarship, who had been on the Court of Appeals since And a further illustration.
Supreme Court After the fact pattern, Cardozo began his discussion of the law with "the conduct of the defendant's 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.
We draw an uncertain and wavering line, but draw it we must as best we can. No man may say whence any drop of water is derived. Perhaps other distinctions may be necessary. There needs be duty due the one complaining but this is not a duty to a particular individual because as to him harm might be expected.
A chauffeur negligently collides with another car which is filled with dynamite, although he could not know it. There was any sign or distinguishing characteristic in the package to determine that it contained fireworks. But when injuries do result from our unlawful act we are liable for the consequences.
How far cannot be told from the record—apparently twenty-five or thirty feet. Her former attorney, Wood, maintained a law office in the Woolworth Building until his death in at age Each is proximate in the sense it is essential.
No one was hurt enough to spend the night in the hospital, though several people, Palsgraf among them, were listed as injured. The court must ask itself whether there was a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect.
He testified that he had treated Palsgraf occasionally for minor ailments before the incident at East New York, but on the day after found her shaken and bruised.
This appears in the form of action, which was known as trespass on the case Holdsworth, op. One of the scales hit the P. To the eye of ordinary vigilance, the bundle is abandoned waste, which may be kicked or trod on with impunity.
In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. As we have said, we cannot trace the effect of an act to the end, if end there is.
The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. Matter of Polemis, L. You may speak of a chain, or if you please, a net. If there was a wrong to him at all, which may very well be doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his package.
Cardozo's statement of facts, Palsgraf v. A cause, but not the proximate cause. Everyone owes everyone else in the world the duty of refraining from acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. We have said so repeatedly. Even if the guard had thrown down the package, D would not be liable to P since a reasonable person could not foresee P's injury.
If there was a wrong to him at all, which may very well be doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his package.
He wrote that while the set of facts might be novel, the case was no different in principle from well-known court decisions on causation, such as the Squib casein which an explosive a squib was lit and thrown, then was hurled away repeatedly by people not wanting to be hurt until it exploded near the plaintiff, injuring him; his suit against the man who had set the squib in motion was upheld.
Citation. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., N.Y. (N.Y. ) Brief Fact Summary. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second.
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24, Decided May 29, NY CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. [*] OPINION OF THE COURT CARDOZO, Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant 's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach.
Long Island Railroad Co., N.Y.N.E. 99 (), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant Essay Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. S.W.2d (Tex. ) Facts: The plaintiff, Fisher, was a guest invited to a luncheon held at the Carrousel Motor Hotel (the “Carrousel”) with his other associates.
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co. Citation. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co Appellant. The Long Island Railroad Company.
Respondent. Helen Palsgraf. Year. Court. New York Court of Appeals. Judges. Cardozo CJ and Andrews, Pound, Lehman, Kellogg, Crane, and O'Brien JJ At trial and first appeal Palsgraf was successful, Year: Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24, Decided May 29, NY CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. [*] OPINION OF THE COURT CARDOZO, Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant 's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach.Helen palsgraf respondent v the long