Two guys were running to catch a train, one of them made it the other one reached out to a conductor to pull him inside. As this happened the man dropped his package, which happened to have fireworks inside. The fireworks exploded causing a shockwave through the train station which knocked over a large scale. The scale fell on Mrs. Palsgraf and she sustained injuries, so she sued the railroad for negligience.
Mrs. Palsgraf took the law on the defendant; The Long Island Railroad company in civil court. She entered a personal injury lawsuit against the company, Long Island Railroad. She claimed that its employees’ negligence injured her and that she was entitled to damages.
The two main issues that arise form this case are: the manner of determination of the duty of care; and the person to whom the party owes a duty of care.
Both the trial court and subsequential intermediate apellant court found by jury, verdict for the plaintiff. The ruling that forced the defendant to appeal a third time, but this time to the states highest appellate court: Court of Appeals of New York. The New York Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint.
STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES Can the defendant be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably forseen?
ULTIMATE LEGAL CONCLUSION The final…show more content… Therefore, Long Island Railroad company did not owe a Duty of Care to Palsgraf. For the reason being that it could not be reasonably foreseen that the harmless newspaper-wrapped package of fireworks posed immediate danger. Neither to the railroad station employees assisting the passenger carrying the package or its its potential consequences when the package was dropped. With that being said liability is limited by proximate clause, not by defining the scope of duty or negligence. Mrs.Palsgraf complaint was rightfully dismissed by The New York Court of