Helen Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company Case Analysis FACTS

Tags:

• Action
• Analysis
• Animals Must Be Protected
• BMW Case Analysis
• Board
• Body
• Boeing Airbus Case Analysis
• Care
• Case
• Company
• Corporation Case Analysis
• Cost
• Court
• Crm Rbc Financial Case Analysis
• Cultural Diversity in New York
• Defense
• Dell Computer Corporation Case Analysis
• Development
• Dimensional Fund Advisors Case Analysis
• DuPont Case Analysis
• Duty
• Edward
• Eli Lilly and Company Case Analysis
• Events
• Evil Lies Deep Within Analysis of The

Show more

Pages:

2

Words:

550

Get document Get an original paper

Helen Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company Case Analysis FACTS Palsgraf had already bought her ticket and was waiting to board a train when two men came in a hurry to board an already moving train. One man managed to climb the train platform safely but the other man who was carrying an unknown package concealed in a newspaper was slow. He seemed unsteady while boarding the train and was helped by two Railroad company employees onto the train platform. The package he was carrying fell and caused an explosion that damaged the platform and some debris reached Palsgraf and caused mental and physical injury. Because the package apparently carried fireworks. This, therefore, is the reason Palsgraf is suing the Railroad company. ISSUES Could a defendant be found or held accountable for negligence resulting in injury for actions that cannot be reasonably anticipated? Could there be an interaction that is causationally absolute among all the temporal happenings that could accurately single out negligent parties? RULES No, a defendant could not be found or held accountable for injury resulting to injury for deeds that cannot be reasonably anticipated. Because the respondent is only obligated to the duty of care if the respondent is in a reasonably expected zone of danger. No, there is no interaction that is absolutely causational among all the temporal events that could accurately single out negligent parties. Because of two factors, firstly, negligence that is actionable must be proven through a duty of care and violation of a right or legally protected interest. Secondly, there is the presence of legal limits of immunity through both anticipated temporal and physical