Podcast
Questions and Answers
Who is the plaintiff in the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
Who is the plaintiff in the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
- The guard
- Mr. Long
- The Railroad Company
- Miss Palsgraf (correct)
Who is the defendant in the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
Who is the defendant in the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
- Long Island Railroad (correct)
- A train conductor
- Miss Palsgraf
- A guard
What were the facts of the Palsgraf case?
What were the facts of the Palsgraf case?
Palsgraf was standing on a platform after buying a ticket to Rockaway Beach. As a train was moving, a man jumped aboard, causing a package with fireworks to fall and explode, injuring Palsgraf.
What is the main issue in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
What is the main issue in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad?
The decision of the court was that the Railroad Company was negligent.
The decision of the court was that the Railroad Company was negligent.
What was the reason given for the court's decision?
What was the reason given for the court's decision?
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
Study Notes
Case Overview: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
- Plaintiff: Miss Palsgraf
- Defendant: Long Island Railroad
Key Facts
- Incident occurs at a train platform after Palsgraf buys a ticket to Rockaway Beach.
- A train, bound for a different destination, stops at the station.
- Two men attempt to board the moving train; one successfully, while the other, unsteady with a package, is assisted by a guard.
- The second guard pushes the man from behind, causing the package to fall onto the tracks.
- The dislodged package, small and wrapped in newspaper, contains fireworks, which explode upon impact.
- The explosion sends scales crashing down at the opposite end of the platform, injuring Palsgraf.
Legal Issue
- The central question is whether the Railroad Company acted negligently in this incident.
Court Decision
- The court ruled in favor of the defendants, the Long Island Railroad.
Reasoning Behind the Decision
- The guards' actions were directed towards the holder of the package, not towards Palsgraf.
- There was no indication that the falling package posed a danger to bystanders.
- Negligence requires proof of an invasion of a legally protected interest, which was not established in this case.
- General negligence cannot be assumed without evidence of a breach of duty owed to the injured party.
- The court found that the absence of care must be evaluated in context of the specific circumstances of the situation.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
