FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 822 times | Saved to 104 briefcases
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928), 248 NY 339, 162 NE 99.

Facts:

Guy running for train; train workers helped push the guy onto the train; a package he is carrying falls under train; fireworks exploded and cause shingles to fall on woman in another part of the station. Woman sues Railroad for negligence.

Issue(s):

Is there a generalized duty of care (whether or not the company could have reasonably foreseen the plaintiff being injured)?

Ratio:

There is no general duty of care owe by one person to another.

Analysis:

Judge finds no proximity between act and consequence. Policy considerations about how much we think one person should be responsible for what happens to another.

Dissent argued that everybody owes each other a duty of care.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.