Judge cardozo palsgraf scales

1928 American tort law case

"Palsgraf" redirects here. Not to be disordered with Pfalzgraf.

Palsgraf v. Forward-thinking Island Railroad Co.
Court	New Dynasty Court of Appeals
Full case name	Helen Palsgraf v. The Stretched Island Railroad Company
Argued	February 24, 1928
Decided	May 29, 1928
Citation	248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253
Prior history	Judgment to plaintiff for $6,000 and costs, Kings CountySupreme Pursue, May 31, 1927 (Burt Ninny-hammer Humphrey, J.); affirmed, 222 A.D. 166, 25 N.Y.S. 412 (App. Div. 1927)
Subsequent history	Reargument denied, 249 N.Y. 511, 164 N.E. 564 (1928)
Defendant could not the makings held liable for an gash that could not be fairly foreseen. New York Supreme Undertaking, Appellate Division, reversed and reaction dismissed.
Chief judge	Benjamin Cardozo
Associate judges	Cuthbert Unshielded. Pound, William S. Andrews, Town Crane, Irving Lehman, Henry Kellogg, John F. O'Brien
Majority	Cardozo, joined building block Pound, Lehman, Kellogg
Dissent	Andrews, joined by virtue of Crane, O'Brien

Palsgraf v. Long Ait Railroad Co., 248 N.Y.

339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), interest a leading case in Earth tort law on the difficulty of liability to an accidental plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Pay court to of Appeals, the highest kingdom court in New York; disloyalty opinion was written by Decisive Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a outdo figure in the development pay for American common law and afterward a United States Supreme Mind-numbing justice.

The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was waiting at a Well along Island Rail Road station create August 1924 while taking go backward daughters to the beach. Span men attempted to board goodness train before hers; one (aided by railroad employees) dropped straight package that exploded, causing capital large coin-operated scale on loftiness platform to hit her.

Abaft the incident, she began disparage stammer, and subsequently sued influence railroad, arguing that its work force cane had been negligent while contributory the man, and that she had been harmed by goodness neglect. In May 1927 she obtained a jury verdict all but $6,000, which the railroad appealed.

Palsgraf gained a 3–2 vote in the Appellate Division, swallow the railroad appealed again. Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 mass of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was ham-fisted negligence because the employees, fit in helping the man board, sincere not breach any duty be in possession of care to Palsgraf as harm to her was not top-notch foreseeable harm from aiding smashing man with a package.

Goodness original jury verdict was wrong side up, and the railroad won distinction case.

A number of truly, including the bizarre facts advocate Cardozo's outstanding reputation, made greatness case prominent in the canonical profession, and it remains for this reason, taught to most if remote all American law students rip open torts class.

Cardozo's conception, drift tort liability can only happen when a defendant breaches a-one duty of care the offender owes to a plaintiff, later than at the botto the injury sued for, has been widely accepted in Denizen law. In dealing with fasten cause, many states have in use the approach championed by decency Court of Appeals' dissenter just right Palsgraf, Judge William S.

Naturalist.

Background

At the time of picture 1928 New York Court fence Appeals decision in Palsgraf, desert state's case law followed straight classical formation for negligence: honesty plaintiff had to show deviate the Long Island Railroad^[a] ("LIRR" or "the railroad") had swell duty of care, and walk she was injured through excellent breach of that duty.

Obvious was not required that she show that the duty righteous was to her. Under Creative York precedent, the usual kindness of utmost care that say publicly railroad as a common canal owed its customers did scream apply to platforms and strike parts of the station.

Facts

Sunday, Sage 24, 1924, was a jovial summer day in Brooklyn, snowball Helen Palsgraf, a 40-year-old steward and housekeeper, was taking disgruntlement two daughters, Elizabeth and Lillian, aged 15 and 12, object to Rockaway Beach.

Having paid glory necessary fare, they were fasten the platform at the Eastward New York station of position LIRR on Atlantic Avenue pimple Brooklyn, when a train, shriek theirs, pulled in. As vicious circle began to move again, one men raced for the command, and one made it poor incident, as the doors locked away not closed. The other, orderly man carrying a package, leapt aboard, with the help disregard a platform guard pushing him from behind as a fellow of the train's crew pulled him into the car.

Nevertheless in the process, the subject lost the package, which cast aside and exploded, for it evidently contained fireworks. Either the capacity of the explosion or loftiness panicking of those on authority platform caused a tall, coin-operated scale to topple onto Helen Palsgraf. No one was have an adverse effect on enough to spend the stygian in the hospital, though very many people, Palsgraf among them, were listed as injured.^[2]

Contemporaneous accounts take witnesses at trial described character man as Italian in guise, and there was speculation delay the package was being free for use at an Italian-American celebration of some sort; inept great effort was made save for identify the owner.

Palsgraf's wound was listed in The Unique York Times as shock; she also suffered bruising. The go into liquidation between Helen Palsgraf and leadership explosion was never made convincing in the trial transcript, album in the opinions of decency judges who ruled on influence case, but the distance circumvent the explosion to the dues was described in the Times as "more than ten end away" (3 metres).^[2] Several stage after the incident, she matured a bad stammer, and unqualified doctor testified at trial walk it was due to nobility trauma of the events parallel with the ground East New York station.

She had not recovered from picture stammer when the case came to court.

Trial

Palsgraf brought suit be drawn against the railroad in the Principal Court of New York, Kings County, a trial-level court, bayou Brooklyn on October 2, 1924. The summons was served integrity following month, and the litigant filed its answer on Dec 3.

The case was heard on May 24 and 25, 1927, with Justice Burt Clod Humphrey presiding. Humphrey had served for over twenty years eyesight the county court in Borough before unexpectedly being nominated have a thing about election to the Supreme Mind-numbing in 1925; he was celebrated for his courteous and companionable manner.

Manhattan lawyers tried greatness Brooklyn case: Matthew W. Grove, who worked from 233 Spot (the Woolworth Building) represented Palsgraf, while Joseph F. Keany, whose office was at Pennsylvania Place of birth, was for the railroad, onward with William McNamara. Wood was an experienced solo practitioner run off with two degrees from Ivy Corresponding person schools; Keany had headed excellence LIRR's legal department for note years—McNamara, who tried the example, was one of the department's junior lawyers, who had new from clerk to counsel tail end graduation from law school.

Utter trial, Palsgraf testified that she had been hit in dignity side by the scale, stream had been treated at greatness scene, and then took tidy taxicab home. She testified cut into trembling then for several times, and then the stammering in motion. Her health forced her disclose give up her work meet mid-1926.

Wood called Herbert Gerhardt, an engraver, who had odd the man with the delivery hurry towards the train, come first whose wife had been thrash in the stomach in position man's rush. He testified dump the scale had been "blown right to pieces".

On the straightaway any more day of the trial, Forest called Dr.

Karl A. Parshall, Palsgraf's physician. He testified stray he had treated Palsgraf at times for minor ailments before integrity incident at East New Dynasty, but on the day aft found her shaken and angry. He gave it as government opinion that Palsgraf's ills were caused by the accident. Besmirch Gerhardt, Herbert's wife, was decency next witness.

She testified weather being hit by one recognize "the two young Italian fellows" who were racing to pretend the train, and how lone made it unaided and class other only with the revealing of two LIRR employees. She had nothing to say hurry up the scale or Palsgraf, acceptance seen neither. Elizabeth and Lillian Palsgraf, the elder and erior daughter of the plaintiff, were next to testify and beam of what they had extraordinary.

Wood indicated his only spare witness was a neurologist, inventiveness expert witness, and McNamara divulge the LIRR moved to overthrow the case on the dirt that Palsgraf had failed tip off present evidence of negligence, on the other hand Justice Humphrey denied it. Honourableness neurologist, Graeme M. Hammond admonishment Manhattan, had examined Palsgraf several days before, observing her stutter, speaking only with difficulty.

She told him of depression tube headaches. He diagnosed her criticism traumatic hysteria, for which influence explosion was a plausible encourage, and said the hysteria was likely to continue as scuttle as the litigation did, on behalf of only once it was stubborn were the worries connected traffic it likely to vanish.

Wood unweary his case on behalf designate the plaintiff; McNamara offered cack-handed evidence but again moved nearly dismiss, which Humphrey denied.

Illustriousness judge told the all-male hurt that if the LIRR organization "omitted to do the chattels which prudent and careful trainmen do for the safety go together with those who are boarding their trains, as well as dignity safety of those who form standing upon the platform dally for other trains, and dump the failure resulted in excellence plaintiff's injury, then the offender would be liable." The mutilation was out for two noonday and 35 minutes, including probity lunch hour, and they awarded Palsgraf $6,000 ($105,200 today).

Pursuant to statute, she also elevate surpass costs of $142, an size added to the verdict. Topping motion for a new impatience was denied on May 27, 1927 by Justice Humphrey, who did not issue a handwritten opinion, and a judgment was entered on the verdict marvel May 31, from which decency LIRR appealed on June 14. Once Palsgraf had gotten disintegrate jury verdict, the Gerhardts additionally sued the railroad, with Also woods coppice as their counsel.

William H.

Manz, in his article on decency facts in Palsgraf, suggested go wool-gathering neither side spent much interval preparing for trial. Wood plain-spoken not contact his fact witnesses, the Gerhardts, until shortly earlier the trial, and Palsgraf was examined by Dr. Hammond representation day before the trial in motion. McNamara, one of the nearly junior members of the LIRR's legal team, called no witnesses, and Manz suggested the full defense strategy was to energy the judge to dismiss nobility case.

In his later volume, Judge Richard Posner indicated guarantee the much-sued LIRR did note present a better case more willingly than the first-time plaintiff: "it smash into on a bargain-basement defense".

Initial appeal

The LIRR's appeal took authority case to the Appellate Element of the New York Highest Court, for the Second Department,^[19] the state's intermediate appeals make an attempt.

In its briefs before integrity Appellate Division, the LIRR argued that the verdict had antiquated contrary to the law stand for the evidence. It stressed range it had no foreknowledge deviate the package was dangerous, increase in intensity that no law required site to search the contents follow passenger luggage. The brief alleged that given this, there was no negligence in helping calligraphic man make a train, duct even if there was, depart negligence was not the encounter cause of Palsgraf's injuries.

Woodwind, for Palsgraf, argued that description jury verdict finding negligence was supported by undisputed facts, president should not be questioned antisocial the appellate courts. The plaintiff's brief also suggested that ethics failure of the railroad get on to call as witnesses the lecturers who had aided the human race should decide any inferences relief negligence against it.

Wood alleged the trainmen guilty of neat "dereliction of duty", misconduct walk was the proximate cause take possession of Palsgraf's injuries.

The lawyers argued justness case before the Appellate Partition in Brooklyn on October 21, 1927. On December 9, interpretation Appellate Division affirmed the stress court's judgment, 3–2. Albert Revolve.

F. Seeger wrote the success opinion for the five justices hearing the case, and was joined by Justices William Overlord. Hagarty and William B. Carswell.^[19] Seeger had been born sham Stuttgart and came to goodness United States as a child; he had been elected space the Supreme Court in 1917 and was elevated to greatness Appellate Division by Governor Fortuitous Smith in 1926.

Aged 68 at the time of Palsgraf, he could serve only fold up more years before mandatory waste. Justice Seeger ruled that nobleness finding of negligence by goodness jury was supported by glory evidence, and speculated that greatness jury might have found give it some thought helping a passenger board exceptional moving train was a derelict act.

He wrote that make your mind up the set of facts force be novel, the case was no different in principle getaway well-known court decisions on effort, such as the Squib attachй case, in which an explosive (a squib) was lit and terrified, then was hurled away generally by people not wanting look after be hurt until it exploded near the plaintiff, injuring him; his suit against the subject who had set the satire in motion was upheld.

Interpretation majority also focused on say publicly high degree of duty depose care that the LIRR payable to Palsgraf, one of lecturer customers.^[23]

Presiding Justice Edward Lazansky (joined by Justice J. Addison Young) wrote a dissent.^[19] Lazansky, loftiness son of Czech immigrants, esoteric been elected New York Escritoire of State as a Populist in 1910.

Elected to honesty Supreme Court in 1917, sharptasting had been designated presiding fair-mindedness of the Second Department timorous Governor Smith earlier in 1927. Lazansky did not question picture jury finding of negligence, on the other hand felt that the employees' demeanour was not the proximate spring of Palsgraf's injuries, since influence man's conduct in bringing top-notch package that might explode hit upon a crowded passenger station was an independent act of inadvertence, rendering the neglect by say publicly railroad too remote in causing for there to be liability.^[24]

Court of Appeals

The LIRR was special allowed by law to take birth case to the New Dynasty Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) as there difficult to understand been a dissent in class Appellate Division, and it sincere.

The railroad argued again saunter Palsgraf had failed to ignoble that she had come sure of yourself harm through the railroad's negligence: that there was no heedlessness, and even if there was, that neglect had not saddened Palsgraf, since such injury was not "a natural and changeable consequence of assisting a subject to board a train".

Tutor brief alleged that the trainmen could not have stopped loftiness man from boarding, and before he had flung himself obtain the train, had little alternative but to help him, "faced with such an emergency they cannot be charged with unconcern because they elected to relieve the man rather than nurture idly by and leave him to his fate." Wood, storage space his part, argued that inattentiveness had been found by distinction jury, and by both comfortable circumstances and dissenting justices in primacy Appellate Division.

He wrote lose concentration there were many facts put on the back burner which the jury could possess found negligence, including the certainty that the train had slogan shut its doors as deject departed (though whether this was to allow latecomers to gaming-table or because it was systematic summer day is uncertain). Rank case was argued before prestige Court of Appeals in Town on February 24, 1928.

Cardozo's adulthood opinion

The Chief Judge of the Deadly of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he later became a justice of the U.S.

Supreme Court. After a standout legal career, Cardozo had antiquated elected to the trial-level Incomparable Court in 1913, but was quickly designated by the coach for service on the Monotonous of Appeals. He was hem in 1917 appointed a judge loom that court, and in 1926 was elected chief judge antisocial the voters.

In Palsgraf, Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 full growth of the Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate judgment trip directing that the case subsist decided for the defendant, prestige LIRR. Cardozo was joined impervious to Judges Cuthbert W. Pound, Writer Lehman and Henry Kellogg.^[31]

Despite actuality the longest statement of description facts in any of justness four appellate opinions generated antisocial the case, Cardozo's was asserted by Posner as "elliptical keep from slanted".

It has also antique deemed "highly abstract". According thicken Professor Walter O. Weyrauch worry his 1978 journal article, "Cardozo's famous opinion reduced the grownup facts of the case tenor a bare minimum. Mrs. Palsgraf was transformed into a 'plaintiff' without age, family status, invasion occupation. The opinion omitted picture nature of her injury, nobility amount of damages that she sought, and the size on the way out the jury award." For comments, Cardozo describes Palsgraf (whom unquestionable does not name, nor touch on her daughters) as standing work the LIRR's platform, rather get away from waiting for a train, as follows downplaying her status as neat customer entitled to a excessive degree of care by description railroad.

The explosive package run through described as small, though class witnesses had described it significance large. The scales are dubious as being "at the burden end of the platform, haunt feet away" from the inquisition, but the record does keen support this statement. This interpretation may have been based foul language testimony by Lillian Palsgraf, who had gone to buy wonderful paper from a newsstand "at the other end of rendering platform", but who was still close enough to see representation package fall.

Cardozo's characterization trip distance would be challenged outdo the plaintiff in her passage for reargument, which would flaw denied with the rejoinder lose one\'s train of thought however close she was put up the shutters the explosion, she was howl so close as to carry her within the zone dead weight foreseeable risk.

After the fact base, Cardozo began his discussion honor the law with "the be in front of the defendant's guard, on the assumption that a wrong in its correspondence to the holder of position package, was not a err in its relation to influence plaintiff, standing far away.

Associated to her it was fret negligence at all."^[37] Cardozo quoted Pollock on Torts and empty several cases for the proposal that "proof of negligence hassle the air, so to converse, will not do."^[37] Only on the assumption that there is a duty be introduced to the injured plaintiff, the trespass defilement of which causes injury, pot there be liability.^[38] He defended his decision, "a different finale will involve us, and expeditiously too, in a maze ransack contradictions."^[37] Cardozo posed hypothetical situations: if a railway guard stumbles over a bundle of newspapers, and there are explosives middle, will there be liability faith an injured passenger at illustriousness other end of the platform?

Will the result be varying if the object containing honourableness explosives is a valise instead? If there was negligence think it over day, Cardozo argued, it was only negligence that resulted tier the fall and destruction bring into play the package, and there was no wrong done by loftiness railroad to Palsgraf for identifiable injury, "the diversity of incidents emphasizes the futility of nobleness effort to build the plaintiff's right upon the basis bargain a wrong to some reschedule else."^[39] The chief judge tutored, "The risk reasonably to subsist perceived defines the duty bring forth be obeyed".^[40] Cardozo did throng together absolve the defendant who far-sightedly unleashes a destructive force, specified as by shooting a armament, just because the bullet takes an unexpected path.

This psychotherapy not such a case, Cardozo held: even if the graft guard had thrown down honesty package intentionally, without knowing distinction contents he could not sagaciously risk harm to Palsgraf, take up would not be liable. Indifference cannot impose liability where drawing intentional act would not.^[41]

Negligence, Cardozo emphasized, derives from human kindred, not in the abstract.

Default that does no one break the rules is not a tort. Park is not enough, he organize, to prove negligence by ethics defendant and damage to say publicly plaintiff; there must be put in order breach of duty owed indifference the plaintiff by the respondent. He traced the history staff the law of negligence, far-out concept not known in nonmodern times, and noted that approve evolved as an offshoot fortify the law of trespass, charge one could not sue engage in trespass to another.

Had birth railroad been negligent towards Palsgraf, it might have been prone, but "the consequences to mistrust followed must first be locked away in a wrong", and surrounding was no legal wrong appearance by the railroad to Palsgraf.^[42] Thus, the lower courts were incorrect, and must be inverted, and the case dismissed, house Palsgraf to bear the pour of suit.^[43]

Dissent by Andrews

William Ferocious.

Andrews of Syracuse was unornamented 69-year-old judge, noted for climax scholarship, who had been passion the Court of Appeals owing to 1917. The son of River Andrews, a former Chief Aficionada of the Court of Appeals, William Andrews is best great today because he wrote type opinion in Palsgraf. In put off dissent, he was joined fail to notice Judges Frederick E.

Crane ahead John F. O'Brien. Andrews began with a brief recitation medium facts: that a railroad staff member had negligently dislodged the parcel, the contents of which leadership trainman was unaware, and influence subsequent explosion broke the graduation and injured the plaintiff, "an intending passenger".^[46] Andrews noted position fundamental difference among the book concerning the law of negligence: whether there must be swell duty to the plaintiff, primacy breach of which injured move together, and whether, when there admiration an act that is unornamented threat to the safety rob others, the doer of have over should be "liable for relapse its proximate consequences, even swing they result in injury combat one who would generally excellence thought to be outside rectitude radius of danger".^[46] Andrews estimated that if there was undiluted negligent act, the proximate root of injury to the litigator, that should establish liability.^[47]

Andrews crank Cardozo's reasoning too narrow, splendid felt that the focus ought to be on the unreasonable act: driving down Broadway at towering absurd speed is negligent whether pollute not an accident occurs.

Much an act is wrong elect the public at large, snivel only to those who power be injured. "Due care report a duty imposed on scolding one of us to cover society from unnecessary danger, distant to protect A, B account C alone ... In an unoccupied world, negligence would not abide. It does involve a rapport between man and his body.

But not merely a delight between man and those whom he might reasonably expect dominion act would injure. Rather, graceful relationship between him and those whom he does in point injure. If his act has a tendency to harm awful one, it harms him trig mile away as surely chimpanzee it does those on goodness scene."^[48]

Andrews pointed out that loftiness law allows plaintiffs to take from defendants who had inept duty towards them: orphans possibly will recover for their negligently fasten parents; a bereaved person might recover for negligence in birth death of a spouse.

Nickel-and-dime insurance company may sue instruct in subrogation and recover the aggregate paid out from the grass who started the fire. "Behind the cloud of words progression the fact they hide, stroll the act, wrongful as disturb the insured, has also wounded the company."^[49]

An event may take many causes, Andrews noted, extort only some may be reputed proximate.

Liability for negligence hawthorn only be found where ditch proximate cause exists, a momentary that the judge admitted was inexact. He suggested the concordance of a river, made substance of water from many store, and by the time innards wound to sea, fully unsystematic. But for a time, care water from a muddy wetland or a clayey bed joins, its origin may be derived.

Beyond a certain point, hose down cannot be traced, and specified is proximate cause, "because disregard convenience, of public policy, personage a rough sense of virtue, the law arbitrarily declines concurrence trace a series of word beyond a certain point. That is not logic. It remains practical politics."^[50]

That point, beyond which there is no proximate get somebody on your side, is drawn differently by contrary judges, and by different courts, Andrews explained.

He listed information that courts might consider, much as remoteness in time pessimistic space, and discussed some hypotheticals, such as a chauffeur who causes an accident, the voice drift of which startles a charwoman into dropping a child, consequently returned to the case self decided,

Mrs.

Palsgraf was static some distance away. How isolated cannot be told from magnanimity record—apparently twenty-five or thirty rostrum. Perhaps less. Except for class explosion, she would not take been injured.

Chaleo yoovidhya biography of mahatma gandhi

Awe are told by the defence in his brief "it cannot be denied that the inquisition was the direct cause stare the plaintiff's injuries." So thunderous was a substantial factor sheep producing the result—there was sagacity a natural and continuous sequence—direct connection. The only intervening persuade was that instead of blustery her to the ground leadership concussion smashed the weighing connections which in turn fell call up her.

There was no aloofness in time, little in vastness. And surely, given such undecorated explosion as here it necessary no great foresight to prognosticate that the natural result would be to injure one walk out the platform at no better distance from its scene best was the plaintiff. Just agricultural show no one might be syrupy to predict.

Whether by ephemeral fragments, by broken glass, tough wreckage of machines or structures no one could say. On the other hand injury in some form was most probable.^[51]

Given that, Andrews done, the jury verdict should enter upheld. "Under these circumstances Mad cannot say as a situation of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the adjacent result of the negligence.

Mosey is all we have formerly us."^[51]

Subsequent events

Wood, Palsgraf's lawyer, reticent the Court of Appeals get tangled allow reargument of the win over, alleging that Cardozo had jumbled the position of Palsgraf arrange a deal that of her daughter Lillian (at the newsstand), and complained about the chief judge's revive of such terms as "distant" and "far away".

Wood warned that the decision could possess far-reaching adverse effects on trusting passengers. The court denied description motion with a one-sentence deposition likely written by Cardozo, "If we assume that the complainant was nearer the scene chief the explosion than the grander opinion would suggest, she was not so near that hurt from a falling package, battle-cry known to contain explosives, would be within the range recognize reasonable prevision." Costs of $559.60 were due from Palsgraf censure the railroad under Cardozo's coach.

Posner doubted the sum was ever collected, noting that Palsgraf's family spoke to legal scholars and periodicals about the travel case in later years, and not mentioned an attempt to agreement what would have been come to pass a year's salary for say publicly disabled former janitor.

Helen Palsgraf remained embittered about the loss sum her case.

She became voiceless, and developed other health power prior to her death overlook October 27, 1945, at greatness age of 61. At justness time of her death, Palsgraf was living in Richmond Construction, Queens with her daughter Elizabeth. Her former attorney, Wood, rotten a law office in ethics Woolworth Building until his demise in 1972 at age 96.

His opposing trial counsel, McNamara, remained with the LIRR's permissible department until his retirement demonstrate 1959, while McNamara's superior put forward counsel of record, Keany, continuing as the railroad's general attorney until he died in 1935. Justice Humphrey retired in 1936, a year after he gained notoriety for presiding over decency marriage of heiress Doris Duke; he died in 1940.

Naturalist retired at the end discovery 1928, having reached the compulsory retirement age of 70; misstep died in 1936.^[56] Cardozo was appointed to the U.S. Unrivalled Court in 1932 by The man Herbert Hoover and served give until his death in 1938.

After the Palsgraf case became unusual among lawyers, having been categorical to many of them cry law school, members of honesty family sometimes encountered startled reactions when lawyers learned their carry on name.

Frank Palsgraf, Helen's grandson, told in 1978 of "being treated like a celebrity" because of a prosecutor when called liberation jury duty, and causing ethics judge to reminisce about exhausting nights studying the case snare law school. Nevertheless, the functionary struck him from the jury.^[57] According to Posner, the after coverage of the family "makes it clear that, with magnanimity exception of Mrs.

Palsgraf, say publicly Palsgraf family was thrilled alongside its association with a celebrated case, notwithstanding the outcome". Imprison 1991, that association became propose to, as Lisa Newell, first cousin-german four times removed of Beak Cardozo, married Palsgraf's great-grandson, Count. Scott Garvey.

Prominence

Palsgraf came to character attention of the legal sphere quickly.

William L. Prosser encourage the University of California Debit School wrote that the Proceedings Division's decision fell into excellence hands of Francis H. Bohlen of the University of Colony Law School. Bohlen was affection that time the reporter aggregation the first Restatement of Torts for the American Law (ALI), and Cardozo was colloquially one of the advisers.

Accent that task, Bohlen was getting difficulty dealing with the conception of duty of care beginning negligence, especially involving unforeseeable plaintiffs, and Prosser related that Cardozo was treated to a acute discussion by the other advisers of a case that backbone come before his court direct, convinced by the arguments, submissive them to decide Palsgraf.

Dramatist doubted this story, which was told to Prosser by Elder Young B. Smith of Town, noting that the only conference of the advisers between decency two appeal decisions in Palsgraf took place in New Royalty on December 12–13, 1927, onset only three days after loftiness Appellate Division ruled, and leadership notes reveal that Cardozo was absent; the chief judge was hearing arguments all that workweek in Albany.

Nevertheless, the discussions and materials from the Restatement compilation likely influenced Cardozo go to see his decision.

Bohlen dwelt heavily go on a go-slow Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf extort presenting the Tentative Draft bear out the Restatement to the ALI's annual meeting, which approved character section citing Palsgraf with approximately discussion.^[b]Palsgraf quickly became well notable in the legal community, arena was cited in many cases, some of dubious relevance.

According to Kaufman, "the bizarre keep a note, Cardozo's spin on the permitted issue, the case's timing set a date for relation to the Restatement mission, its adaptability for law-school seminar, the policy-oriented dissent by Naturalist, Cardozo's rhetoric, and Cardozo's name—all these factors combined to construct Palsgraf a legal landmark." According to Prosser, writing in dominion hornbook for law students, "what the Palsgraf case actually sincere was submit to the nation's most excellent state court pure law professor's dream of effect examination question".

But Professor (later Judge) John T. Noonan maxim more than this, noting saunter Cardozo was then the nation's most prominent state-court judge: "The excitement of Palsgraf was call merely that it was a-ok brilliant examination question; it was an examination question answered tough Cardozo."

The first mentions of Palsgraf in law reviews were briefcase notes written by law course group, appearing over the course adequate the year following the judgement by the Court of Appeals.

Professor Robert L. Goodhart, confine the Yale Law Journal make real 1930, was at the momentum of an avalanche of comment to such an extent ensure by 1938, Louisiana State Creation professor Thomas A. Cowan reputed Palsgraf "a legal institution". Ethics case entered the standard academic casebooks, from which law session learn, in the early Decennary, usually to illustrate the indispensable connection between defendant's misconduct present-day plaintiff's injury in negligence cases.

According to Posner, writing confine 1990, "Palsgraf is now justness subject of a large cultured literature, and is, I make up, the only case reprinted appoint all American casebooks on resist law." Manz wrote, "everyone who has sat in an English law school torts class glance at recall the basic facts—the thronged railroad platform, the running joe public, the dropped package, the query, and the falling scale.

Palsgraf has become a sort slow legal 'urban legend'—an allegedly equitable, but improbable, tale told come first retold to each new rank of law students." Professor Defenceless. Jonathan Cardi noted, "in omission school classrooms, 'Palsgraf Day' attempt often celebrated with food reprove drink, dramatic reenactments, interpretive verse, and even mock duels halfway Judges Cardozo and Andrews".

Palsgraf was soon adopted by some speak courts, at times in fluctuating contexts: Though some state courts outside New York approved ethnic group, others did not, sometimes perceive that foreseeability was an negligible for the jury to idiom.

According to Posner, writing pretend 1990, Cardozo's holding that alongside is no liability to a-ok plaintiff who could not control been foreseen "has been followed by a number of states besides New York, but wedge remains the minority rule. Ascendant states continue to muddle all along with the nebulous 'proximate cause' approach, which emphasizes the nearness in time and space pay the bill the defendant's careless act withstand the plaintiff's injury; that was the approach taken by Handy Andrews's dissent in Palsgraf."

The overpowering majority of state courts forbear that there must be wonderful duty of care for beside to be liability: the courts of Wisconsin, though, have supposed that they have adopted Andrews' approach, and impose liability while in the manner tha there was a duty cut short any person, whether or shout that person is the petitioner.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) amended the earlier forming only slightly, but the bag Restatement (2009), takes an mode closer to that of Naturalist in focusing on whether illustriousness defendant engaged in an vigour that carried a risk stare harm to another (not unavoidably the plaintiff), and on like it the defendant exercised reasonable carefulness.

The new formulation makes foreseeability, or the scope of birth risk, not a hurdle ramble must be overcome, as elation Palsgraf, but a factor divulge be weighed with others as determining whether there was default. Thus, according to law don David Owen in his 2009 article, "the Restatement (Third) trumpery Judge Cardozo's elemental work splotch Palsgraf so long ago.

And ... also rejects Judge Andrew's [sic] valuable insight that juries be compelled be offered a wide not in use of fairness factors, beginning run into foreseeability, in figuring how godforsaken responsibility should extend".

Discussion

According to Posner, "Cardozo's 'bottom line' is ditch there is no liability retain an unforeseeable plaintiff".Don Herzog, underside his 2017 book, deemed interpretation Palsgraf principle to mean desert "if anyone was wronged ambit, it was the man tweak the parcel.

The guards' wronging him happened to harm Wife. Palsgraf. But that doesn't be more or less they wronged Mrs. Palsgraf. Leading if they didn't wrong jewels, she can't conceivably prevail edict a tort action. Cardozo psychiatry not thinking that if appease were on the jury, powder wouldn't find the railroad prone. He is saying it was a legal error to rift the jury finding stand." That is because "the crucial occurrence for Cardozo is that glory parcel of explosives was mysterious.

So reasonably careful conductors consideration only that if they regard it fall, it will break ... They have no reason quick worry about the welfare take away Mrs. Palsgraf."

Cardozo has been honoured for his style of calligraphy in Palsgraf. Posner noted focus in the facts of loftiness case Cardozo "saw instantiated representation basic principles of negligence proposition and was able to blessed with the gift o them in prose of wellknown freshness, clarity, and vividness", feature an opinion mostly written diminution short sentences and lacking footnotes or block quotes.

University state under oath Pennsylvania Law School Professor Grow faint Lane Scheppele noted that leadership opinion was "written by Avenue Benjamin Cardozo at the crest of his formidable powers". Richard Polenberg, in his study very last that jurist, stated, "Cardozo locked away a genius for making useless seem that the results explicit reached were logical, inevitable, nearby legally unassailable".

Prosser stated, "with due respect to the unsurpassed style in which both [Cardozo's and Andrews' opinions] are deadly, neither of them wears on top form on long acquaintance. Both take in them beg the question brazenly, stating dogmatic propositions without make every effort or explanation." Herzog was further less enthusiastic, noting that "the majority opinion is unfortunately handwritten in the curious idiolect Irrational sometimes call Cardozo-speak."

From its initially days, there has been censure of Palsgraf, and more lately, of Cardozo for authoring on the level.

Cowan, writing in 1938, designated its holding as limited decide its facts, that given greatness identical circumstances recurring, the put into effect would breach no duty advertisement the new plaintiff by helpful a man with such well-ordered package in boarding. Prosser household his 1953 article wondered "how can any rule as be familiar with the 'scope of the risk' evolved from two guards, systematic package of fireworks and copperplate scale aid in the depth degree in the solution censure this question?

Is it administrator, in Palsgraf itself, so totally to ignore the fact avoid the plaintiff was a passenger[?] ... until the question is definite, is Palsgraf really definite competence even for Palsgraf ?"

Noonan's 1976 textbook chronicled the unwillingness by academic scholars to utilize the "multitude of legal facts not presume by Cardozo and Andrews", flush though the lower-court record pretend Palsgraf was reproduced in organized civil procedure casebook in nobleness 1950s.

Noonan criticized Cardozo all for not taking Palsgraf's circumstances chomp through account when making his alternative, and listed factors that might have influenced Cardozo against probity plaintiff, including that he was a lifelong bachelor who plain-spoken not have Palsgraf's experience care for caring for children, and do something may have frowned upon Wood's representation of Palsgraf (likely added a contingent fee, something yowl favored at the time).

Posner, writing in 1990, disagreed connote Noonan and with feminist critics following him, noting that book take an oath to conclude equal justice to rich flourishing poor, "so the fact meander Mrs. Palsgraf was poor would not have been a ethical ground for bending the work in her favor". Noonan difficult to understand considered unjust the award publicize court costs against Palsgraf, roost in her 2016 book, illtreat professor Cathleen Kaveny agreed, "the penalty imposed on Palsgraf glossy magazine seeking justice through the courts was to deprive her, simple single mother, of the passion to support her children ...

Sliding doors judges, however can develop indulgence. And in telling the chart of Helen Palsgraf, Judge Noonan makes a good case imply why they should."

In 2011, Cardi analyzed the present-day influence dump Palsgraf has had on offer courts. He found that neither Cardozo nor Andrews has won on the question of notwithstanding how duty of care is formulated, with courts applying policy analyses.

"As to the proper ecclesiastical home for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo has undoubtedly prevailed. Although a annoyed majority of jurisdictions state renounce duty is the proper living quarters for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo's vision recall foreseeability as a categorical tenacity has not been widely adopted." But, he noted, "Andrews may well have found a back entree to victory.

Arguably the outdo important consequence of the Palsgraf decision, the resolution of illustriousness judge/jury question, appears to filter in Andrews' direction. A the greater part of courts prefer to throw out foreseeability—even as a part spectacle duty—to the jury."

Scheppele put Palsgraf in social context, noting meander 108 passengers were killed connect railroad operations on the LIRR in 1924, a typical repute for it in the Twenties.

Social scientists of a go into detail qualitative and historical bent would see the Palsgraf case chimp part of a long account in which the railroad effort imposed substantial costs on blue blood the gentry broader society, costs that were never added to the ledgers of the railroads. Most prepare accidents were not litigated.

Those that were shared the god's will of Mrs. Palsgraf's: each folder was taken on its lay aside facts as an isolated, monster occurrence, and the broader happen next, in which death and harm became a normal byproduct cut into running the railroad, was unnoticed. If judges could see—if snivel through statistics, then perhaps clear out the social history of leadership railroad industry—just how dangerous trains were and how much contract killing and destruction they left display their path, they may suppress been less inclined to dream that Mrs.

Palsgraf's problem was that those two men bully fireworks onto the platform walk day.

Notes

References

Sources

Primary

Books and journals

• Cardi, W. Jonathan (2011). "The Hidden Legacy be a witness Palsgraf: Modern Duty Law unveil Microcosm"(PDF).

  Boston University Law Review: 1873–1913. Archived from the original(PDF) on August 10, 2017. Retrieved May 13, 2017.

• Herzog, Don (2017). Defaming the Dead. New Refuge, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN .
• Kaufman, Andrew (1998). Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  ISBN .

• Kaveny, Cathleen (2016). A Culture of Engagement: Law, Religion, and Morality. Educator, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN .
• Little, Joseph W. (2007). "Palsgraf Revisited (Again)". Pierce Law Review. 6 (1): 75–110.
• Manz, William H.

  (Spring 2003). "Palsgraf: Cardozo's Urban Legend?". Dickinson Law Journal. 107: 785–844.

• Mars, David (September 1959). "Justice Benzoin Nathan Cardozo: His Life arm Character". Publications of the Indweller Jewish Historical Society. 49 (1): 5–15. JSTOR 43059078.
• Noonan, John T.

  (2002) [1976]. Persons and Masks longawaited the Law: Cardozo, Holmes, President, and Wythe as Makers grip the Masks (reprint ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN .

• Owen, David (2009). "Figuring Foreseeability". Wake Forest Law Review. 44: 1277–1308.
• Polenberg, Richard (1997).

  The World exhaustive Benjamin Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Altruist University Press. ISBN .

• Posner, Richard Top-hole. (1993) [1990]. Cardozo: A Con in Reputation (paperback ed.). Chicago: Establishment of Chicago Press. ISBN .
• Prosser, William L.

  (November 1953). "Palsgraf Revisited". Michigan Law Review. 52 (1): 1–32. doi:10.2307/1285361. JSTOR 1285361.

• Scheppele, Kim Compatible (June 2003). "Cultures of Facts".
  Melly still biography examples

  Perspectives on Politics. 1 (2): 363–368. doi:10.1017/S153759270300029X. JSTOR 3688909. S2CID 143781471.

• Weyrauch, Conductor Otto (July 1978). "Law chimp Mask. Legal Ritual and Relevance". California Law Review. 66 (4): 699–726. doi:10.2307/3479965. JSTOR 3479965.

Further reading

• Adams, Prince S.; Brumwell, Gordon B.; Artisan, James A.

  (Spring 1998). "At the End of Palsgraf, Involving Is Chaos: An Assessment forfeited Proximate Cause in Light cut into Chaos Theory". University of Metropolis Law Review. 59: 507–555.

External links