Helen palsgraf respondent v

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. Suddenly, a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform.

Helen palsgraf respondent v

Background[ edit ] At the time of the New York Court of Appeals decision in Palsgraf, that state's case law followed a classical formation for negligence: It was not required that she show that the duty owed was to her.

As it began to move again, two men raced for the train, and one made it without incident, as the doors had not closed.

Downloading prezi...

The other, a man carrying a package, leapt aboard, with the help of a platform guard pushing him from behind as a member of the train's crew pulled him into the car. But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, for it apparently contained fireworks. Either the force of the explosion or the panicking of those on the platform caused a tall, coin-operated scale to topple onto Helen Palsgraf.

No one was hurt enough to spend the night in the hospital, though several people, Palsgraf among them, were listed as injured. Palsgraf's injury was listed in The New York Times as shock; she also suffered bruising. The distance between Helen Palsgraf and the explosion was never made clear in the trial transcript, or in the opinions of the judges who ruled on the case, but the distance from the explosion to the scale was described in the Times as "more than ten feet away" 3 metres.

She had not recovered from the stammer when the case came to court. The summons was served the following month, and the defendant filed its answer on December 3. She testified to Helen palsgraf respondent v then for several days, and then the stammering started.

Her health forced her to give up her work in mid He testified that the scale had been "blown right to pieces". He testified that he had treated Palsgraf occasionally for minor ailments before the incident at East New York, but on the day after found her shaken and bruised.

He gave it as his opinion that Palsgraf's ills were caused by the accident. She testified to being hit by one of "the two young Italian fellows" who were racing to make the train, and how one made it unaided and the other only with the help of two LIRR employees. She had nothing to say about the scale or Palsgraf, having seen neither.

Wood indicated his only remaining witness was a neurologist, an expert witnessand McNamara for the LIRR moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Palsgraf had failed to present evidence of negligence, but Justice Humphrey denied it.

Helen palsgraf respondent v

The neurologist, Graeme M. Hammond of Manhattan, had examined Palsgraf two days before, observing her stammering, speaking only with difficulty. She told him of depression and headaches. He diagnosed her with traumatic hysteria, for which the explosion was a plausible cause, and said the hysteria was likely to continue as long as the litigation did, for only once it was resolved were the worries connected with it likely to vanish.

The judge told the all-male jury that if the LIRR employees "omitted to do the things which prudent and careful trainmen do for the safety of those who are boarding their trains, as well as the safety of those who are standing upon the platform waiting for other trains, and that the failure resulted in the plaintiff's injury, then the defendant would be liable.

Manz, in his article on the facts in Palsgraf, suggested that neither side spent much time preparing for trial. Wood did not contact his fact witnesses, the Gerhardts, until shortly before the trial, and Palsgraf was examined by Dr.

Hammond the day before the trial started. McNamara, one of the most junior members of the LIRR's legal team, called no witnesses, and Manz suggested the entire defense strategy was to get the judge to dismiss the case.

In its briefs before the Appellate Division, the LIRR argued that the verdict had been contrary to the law and the evidence. It stressed that it had no foreknowledge that the package was dangerous, and that no law required it to search the contents of passenger luggage. The brief stated that given this, there was no negligence in helping a man make a train, and even if there was, that negligence was not the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries.

The plaintiff's brief also suggested that the failure of the railroad to call as witnesses the employees who had aided the man should decide any inferences of negligence against it.

Wood deemed the trainmen guilty of a "dereliction of duty", misconduct that was the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries. Seeger wrote the majority opinion for the five justices hearing the case, and was joined by Justices William F. Hagarty and William B.

Aged 68 at the time of Palsgraf, he could serve only two more years before mandatory retirement.HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent, v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. Lynda Dadej Was the plaintiff's right to be protected from bodily harm violated when she was injured by an unforeseeable event at the train station?

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, metin2sell.com Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant Facts A passenger carrying a package, while hurrying to catch and board a moving Long Island Rail Road train, appeared to two of the railroad's (Defendant's) employees to be falling.

The employees were guards, one of whom was located on the car, the other of whom was located on the platform. The plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was standing at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train - Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V.

the Long Island Railroad Company Case Brief Essay introduction. Suddenly, a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform. Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24, Decided May 29, NY CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R.

HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent, by on Prezi

Co. [*] OPINION OF THE COURT. CARDOZO, Ch. J. The plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was standing at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train.

Suddenly, a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform. He jumped into the train but he could not keep. HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent, v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. A man carrying a package jumped aboard a car of a moving train and, seeming unsteady as if about to.

Palsgraf v Long_Is_RR