Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad Company Case Brief
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, sixth is v. The Long Island Railroad Business, Appellant [NO AMOUNT IN ORIGINAL]
Courtroom of Appeals of New York
248 And. Y. 339; 162 D. E. 99; 1928 In. Y. LEXIS 1269; fifty nine A. M. R. 1253 February twenty-four, 1928, Argued
May 30, 1928, Made the decision
The individual Helen Palsgraf was position at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train. Abruptly, a man holding a deal rushed to catch another train that was getting off the platform. He jumped in the train although he cannot keep the harmony and involved to land when a train guard around the car reached forward to get him and another person in the program push him from in back of to help him board the train. Throughout this process the man's package deal which comprised fireworks although guards are not aware of since it was wrapped in magazine, fell in the railroad track and exploded. As a result of the explosion scales reached Hellen Palsgraf who had been in at the other intense of the program causing physical injuries. The Hellen (plaintiff) sued the corporation (defendant) claiming it was accountable for negligence. The jury in a trial decision enters the judgment in support of the plaintiff. The accused appealed professing the individual was not capable to prove that the railroad business was at fault, but the appellate court avowed the consensus. The accused appealed further more to the New York highest condition court which will reversed the judgment.
1 . Does the activities of the railroad guard had been an intrusion of a lawfully protected interest or a guarded right (a wrong) for the plaintiff? 2 . Does the railroad guard violate a duty of care with all the plaintiff browsing the train platform? three or more. Does the rules of proximate cause apply in these instances to determine the defendant is liable for neglect?
1 ) No, the actions with the railroad shield are not considered an intrusion to a legitimately protected interest or proper of the plaintiff. Therefore , it really is...