Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. Relevant Facts: Pl was standing on a platform of dfs railroad after buying a ticket. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. One man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. The package contained fireworks, and when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues. Legal Issue(s): Whether the passenger as the victim of a wrong at all, has a cause of action that is original and primary? Court’s Holding: Not as a negligence claim. Procedure: The judgment of the Appellate Division, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict of the Trial Term should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Law or Rule(s): In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury Court Rationale: The conduct of the guard was not a wrong in relation to the PL standing far away on the platform. The pl must show there is a wrong against herself, not a wrong to another which precipitates down to herself. The risk must reasonably be perceived in order to define the duty to be obeyed and the risk thereby imports a relation; it is a risk to another or to others when it is within the range of apprehension. The most cautious mind could not have foreseen that a parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. There is no tort to be redressed therefore there is not reason to determine whether the causation remote or proximate is attributable. Plaintiff’s Argument: The df’s agent directly caused the injury by exceeding the standard of care a RPP would have exercised under similar situations. Defendant’s Argument: Plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries were caused by negligence of the defendant and it was error for the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Railroads --- Passengers --- Package carried by passenger, dislodged while guards were helping him board train, and which falling to track exploded --- Plaintiff, an intending passenger standing on platform many feet away, injured as result of explosion Minority View - The exercise of due care is a duty imposed on each one of us to protect society from unnecessary danger, not to protect any one individual alone. Every one owes
to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. If such an act occurs, then not only is he wronged to whom harm might reasonably be expected t o result, but also to whomever is in fact injured, even if outside the danger zone.