Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2017
- Learn the rule and the rest of the story in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, a torts case read by law students around the world.
Newsletter Sign-Up: eepurl.com/cBOaBv
Facebook: / learnlawbetter
Website: LearnLawBetter.com
Today I am going to help you understand Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad.
Cardozo’s majority opinion determined that the railroad owed no duty of care to Helen Palsgraf because she was not within the range of apprehension. In other words, she was not a foreseeable plaintiff and foreseeable plaintiffs are determined under the duty element, not the proximate cause element.
Ms. Palsgraf is now immortal. At least to 1L students. I hope it was worth it, ma'am!
The reason Palsgraf got injured was because the fireworks caused chaos and panic, a man running knocked down a scale and the scale fell on to Palsgraf, causing her injuries. If I was the attorney, my focus would be on the scale and it was so easily knocked down by a simple push. I would argue that the railroad knew the scale is heavy and could cause serious injuries if it fell onto someone so they should have secure it down, but they did not.
That was not in the trial record. What does appear in the trial record is that the explosion occurred about eight feet from Mrs Palsgraf. Also, these weren’t fireworks. The police report called them explosives.
a man running knocked down a scale and the scale fell on to Palsgraf? how did you know that?
thank you so much! saving my life in torts for class tomorrow!
Glad I could help! You may know more about the case than your professor, as most professors haven't looked at the case briefs and trial transcripts.
watching from the Philippines and soon to take bar Exams.
Wish you well.
great stuff, keep going
Thanks for the encouragement!
Can you make a video about " Whitlock v. University of Denver
744 P.2d 54; 1987" ?
quick question :) what's the difference between a dissent and majority opinion?
An appellate court is made up of multiple judges. When a majority of judges make a decision that is the majority. The opinions by the minority are called the dissent.
@@Learnlawbetter thank you!!
Great explanation, you made it easy to understand this case. Would it still be negligence if the item destroyed in the box would it been an item of value destroyed? for instance an invention. Would the passenger pushed into the train could've sued the railroad for negligence?
The passenger tried to board a moving train, so no recovery because he contributed to the harm.
Palsgraf probably knows that it is going to be a groundbreaking case that is why he took it.
Why read a case for a stupid business law class when you can just get all the answers from this? Thanks!
Hello professor, I want to study PhD in criminal law and I have masters degree in law in the United States but my jd is in another country not in USA. My question is how many years do I have to study PhD
Thanks in advance
You can get a PhD in criminal justice..... but in the US a PhD in Law is a JD aka a Jurist Doctor.
The JD is a professional doctorate and is not equivalent to a PhD in law. You can watch my video called “PhD in Law” to learn more.
I feel that her lawyer def took that case bcuz of it bein such a clear cut case of bullshit on the part of the railroad company. But idk, maybe there was some platonic or familial connection that tied the two.
Looks like the Railroad got to $peak to Cardozo before his decision.
He is often viewed as a liberal, but in many cases he ruled against the small guy.
@@Learnlawbetter Tbf, that sounds like most folks i wud call liberals; as a leftist myself.
Liberals often love to screw over the little guy when convenient to them; see NIMBYs as the biggest example of such.
ewa
The decision was bs