Most courts still apply Cardozo’s point of view regarding causation (Beatty & Samuelson, 154). In this case, the Court through Justice Cardozo ruled essentially that the defendant guard’s conduct in helping one of the passengers board the train whose package fell, “was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away” (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). The package wrapped in a newspaper contained fireworks which exploded and which struck the plaintiff, causing injuries (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). Cardozo in its decision ruled that such an act in relation to the plaintiff was not negligence (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). The court explained that “nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed” (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). The court stressed that “negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right” (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). In the instant case, it was not proved that defendant’s conduct actually caused the injury and that the harm caused was foreseeable (Beatty & Samuelson, 153-154). Plaintiff was unable to show that there was a violation of her own right in the act of the defendant guard in helping the passenger board the train (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad).
Given the competitive nature of businesses and the desire to actualize profit maximization, cases that touch on tort law still appear in the court law. Nonetheless, there are tort cases that stem from accidents, unforeseen and even foreseen circumstances that harm clients.
In Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad, Palsgraf was being assisted to board the train by two guards, where one was on the platform and the other on the train. Palsgraf dropped a package he was holding and it exploded after hitting the tracks. The shock that emanated from the explosion resulted into a hard hit impact on the platform causing injuries to Palsgraf.
Correspondingly, Long Island Care at Home Ltd is the opposing party to the claims made by Evelyn Coke. The citation for this case is Long Island Care At Home, Ltd v. Coke, 551 US 158 (2007) (Cornell University Law School, “Supreme Court”). FACTS OF THE CASE Long Island Care At Home, Ltd V.
According to the paper it is at once very important to identify a place and its ecological environment and the quotient of delicateness of such an environment before assessing the impact of human activities as Norberg-Schulz notes, with appropriate literature support, that place is “a totality made up of concrete things having material substance, shape.
The guard never intended to hurt the plaintiff given that he was he was dispensing his duty of care. Additionally, the Railroad Company should not be held accountable for the predicament of the plaintiff. The company was not negligent prior to the occurrence of the
The nature of this matter gave headlights and pathways into the notion of proximate cause relative to the aspect of liability while at the same time bringing to light the aspect of limitation of negligence.
Facts: Mrs. Hellen Palsgraf was standing on the steps of the train
The appeal is based on previous decision on matters of law.
An appellate court dismissed an appeal by Long Island Railroad in a case that Palsgraf had won against it. Long Island Railroad brought the case to the court of appeal against upheld
1 pages (250 words)Essay
Cite this document
(“Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/other/28241-in-the-case-palsgraf-v-the-long-island-railroad
(Palsgraf V. The Long Island Railroad Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 Words)
“Palsgraf V. The Long Island Railroad Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/other/28241-in-the-case-palsgraf-v-the-long-island-railroad.
Cited: 0 times
Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad
The package wrapped in a newspaper contained fireworks which exploded and which struck the plaintiff, causing injuries (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad). Cardozo in its decision ruled that such an act in relation to the plaintiff was not negligence (Palsgraf v. the Long Island Railroad)…