Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Research Paper Example

Salient facts

While standing a Long Island Railroad platform to purchase a train ticket, Mrs Palsgraf, who is the plaintiff, saw two men running to catch the train. One of them was carrying a small fireworks package in his hands.  An attempt by two railroad employees to help one of the men who nearly fell caused a commotion. The package which was containing fireworks fell and exploded. The explosion caused some scales at the rear end of the platform to fall injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a legal suit against the company and the court judged in favour of the plaintiff. Although the appellate division affirmed the decision, the New York court of appeal reversed the decision after the long island railroad filed an appeal.

The issue

The issue is determination of the duty of due care that is owed and whom the party owe the duty of due care. The question is whether the island railroad co. acted negligently towards the plaintiff for actions that caused the explosive to injure the plaintiff.

The rule of law and analysis

The law of duty of care depicts that a duty that is owed has to be determined from foreseen risk from given circumstances. It is therefore reasoned that a defendant may only owe a duty of care to those who are within the foreseeable zone of risk or danger (Lau and Johnson, 2014). The court stated that the action of the two railroad employees were wrong in relation to the man carrying the explosive but not to the plaintiff who was far away. There was no notice of presence of fireworks which when dropped could explode and harm those outside the danger zone. Since there was nothing foreseen that could be done to avoid injury to the plaintiff, the defendant thus did not act negligently. As the law states, negligence is not actionable except when it involves invasion violation of rights or an interest that is legally protected (Lau and Johnson, 2014). In this case, the negligence only applied to the passenger and not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no proof of violation of his right. Those of dissenting opinion argued that the railroad should be responsible because negligence to the passenger caused injury to the plaintiff.

Conclusion

Due to the limits set for extension of duty of care in acts of negligence, the plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt, if the harm is not deliberate, that the ultimate injury was caused from an apparent danger zone as inherent in the act. This must be done in order for the claim to hold.

Reference

Lau, T and Johnson, L. (2014). The legal and ethical environment of business (V.2.0). Flat World Education, Inc. http://www.saylor.org/site/textbooks/The%20Legal%20and%20Ethical%20Environment           %20of%20Business.pdf