Palsgraf v Long Island R.R. 1928
Duty & Proximate Cause Torts – pg519 – 10/27/09
Parties: Π – Injured ∆ - RR Co Procedural History: - Trial ct jury finds for π & affirmed by appellate court Facts: - A man carrying a package runs to catch a moving train - ∆ RR employees attempt to help him aboard and his package falls to the rails - The package contained fireworks which shot off - Some equipment fell as a result of the commotion and injured π Legal Issue: Does a ∆ have a duty to protect parties injured through a long chain of events started by their negligence? Holding: Reasoning: - Appellate judge pointed to leaving door open as negligence but that the passenger’s unmarked fireworks were an intervening cause - Cardozo: - No notice of fireworks on package - ∆ negligence was not a wrong to π who was standing far off (relative to her Ø negligence) - No apparent hazard, at least to outward seeming, w/ ref to her - Analogy of a bomb going off by bumping a crowd o The carrier is at fault, not the bumper - This is different than a wrongful act w/ destructive force taking an unexpected path o Like shooting a gun and hitting an unintended target - No notice on package Ø liable Disposition: Reversed Dissent/Concurrence: - Dissent – Andrews o Deal in terms of proximate cause, not negligence o “Due care is a duty imposed on each one of us to protect society from unnecessary danger, not to protect A, B or C alone” o negligence not in the abstract Involves a relationship between man and whomever he injures in fact Even if outside the “danger zone” o Polemis case is right o Stream analogy – distinction, streams from different tributaries stay separate for a time o No fixed rules a question of expediency Ruled by common sense Must be “but for”