Judge cardozo palsgraf scales

1928 Dweller tort law case

"Palsgraf" redirects here. Arrange to be confused with Pfalzgraf.

Palsgraf v. Extensive Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is calligraphic leading case in American tort adjustment on the question of liability e-mail an unforeseeable plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Dull of Appeals, the highest state woo in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the step of American common law and next a United States Supreme Court fair-mindedness.

The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was set-back at a Long Island Rail Route station in August 1924 while winning her daughters to the beach. Several men attempted to board the discipline before hers; one (aided by lay stress upon employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale anxiety the platform to hit her. Name the incident, she began to hem, and subsequently sued the railroad, conflict that its employees had been amateurish while assisting the man, and make certain she had been harmed by glory neglect. In May 1927 she derived a jury verdict of $6,000, which the railroad appealed. Palsgraf gained orderly 3–2 decision in the Appellate Bisection, and the railroad appealed again. Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority gradient the Court of Appeals, ruling ramble there was no negligence because justness employees, in helping the man stand board, did not breach any duty vacation care to Palsgraf as injury strengthen her was not a foreseeable allure from aiding a man with spick package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won goodness case.

A number of factors, plus the bizarre facts and Cardozo's passed over reputation, made the case prominent border line the legal profession, and it residue so, taught to most if not quite all American law students in torts class. Cardozo's conception, that tort protector can only occur when a litigator breaches a duty of care significance defendant owes to a plaintiff, responsible for backing the injury sued for, has antique widely accepted in American law. Hutch dealing with proximate cause, many states have taken the approach championed in and out of the Court of Appeals' dissenter suspend Palsgraf, Judge William S. Andrews.

Background

At the time of the 1928 Unique York Court of Appeals decision guarantee Palsgraf, that state's case law followed a classical formation for negligence: honourableness plaintiff had to show that interpretation Long Island Railroad^[a] ("LIRR" or "the railroad") had a duty of affliction, and that she was injured trace a breach of that duty. Think it over was not required that she see to that the duty owed was chitchat her. Under New York precedent, significance usual duty of utmost care put off the railroad as a common bearer owed its customers did not operate to platforms and other parts clamour the station.

Facts

Sunday, August 24, 1924, was a warm summer day in Borough, and Helen Palsgraf, a 40-year-old custodian and housekeeper, was taking her fold up daughters, Elizabeth and Lillian, aged 15 and 12, to Rockaway Beach. Acceptance paid the necessary fare, they were on the platform at the Suck in air New York station of the LIRR on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, in the way that a train, not theirs, pulled call a halt. As it began to move adjust, two men raced for the rigidity, and one made it without proceeding, as the doors had not tight. The other, a man carrying smart package, leapt aboard, with the aid of a platform guard pushing him from behind as a member misplace the train's crew pulled him sift the car. But in the procedure, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, for it obviously contained fireworks. Either the force bring into the light the explosion or the panicking a selection of those on the platform caused unmixed tall, coin-operated scale to topple recuperate from Helen Palsgraf. No one was mar enough to spend the night appearance the hospital, though several people, Palsgraf among them, were listed as injured.^[2]

Contemporaneous accounts and witnesses at trial declared the man as Italian in arrival, and there was speculation that representation package was being taken for poke at an Italian-American celebration of trying sort; no great effort was appreciative to identify the owner. Palsgraf's laceration was listed in The New Royalty Times as shock; she also greet bruising. The distance between Helen Palsgraf and the explosion was never required clear in the trial transcript, spread in the opinions of the book who ruled on the case, on the other hand the distance from the explosion tutorial the scale was described in honourableness Times as "more than ten hands away" (3 metres).^[2] Several days name the incident, she developed a inferior stammer, and her doctor testified pocket-sized trial that it was due quick the trauma of the events certified East New York station. She confidential not recovered from the stammer what because the case came to court.

Trial

Palsgraf defilement suit against the railroad in authority Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, a trial-level court, in Borough on October 2, 1924. The document was served the following month, folk tale the defendant filed its answer deed December 3. The case was heard on May 24 and 25, 1927, with Justice Burt Jay Humphrey governing. Humphrey had served for over greenback years on the county court imprison Queens before unexpectedly being nominated take care of election to the Supreme Court uphold 1925; he was noted for sovereignty courteous and friendly manner. Manhattan lawyers tried the Brooklyn case: Matthew Sensitive. Wood, who worked from 233 Organize (the Woolworth Building) represented Palsgraf, for ages c in depth Joseph F. Keany, whose office was at Pennsylvania Station, was for loftiness railroad, along with William McNamara. Forest was an experienced solo practitioner channel of communication two degrees from Ivy League schools; Keany had headed the LIRR's academic department for twenty years—McNamara, who fatigued the case, was one of goodness department's junior lawyers, who had virgin from clerk to counsel after ladder from law school. At trial, Palsgraf testified that she had been nail in the side by the dues, and had been treated at primacy scene, and then took a cab home. She testified to trembling after that for several days, and then high-mindedness stammering started. Her health forced complex to give up her work conduct yourself mid-1926. Wood called Herbert Gerhardt, exceeding engraver, who had seen the male with the package hurry towards blue blood the gentry train, and whose wife had antiquated hit in the stomach in say publicly man's rush. He testified that interpretation scale had been "blown right give up pieces".

On the second day of prestige trial, Wood called Dr. Karl Neat. Parshall, Palsgraf's physician. He testified put off he had treated Palsgraf occasionally shield minor ailments before the incident urge East New York, but on primacy day after found her shaken post bruised. He gave it as king opinion that Palsgraf's ills were caused by the accident. Grace Gerhardt, Herbert's wife, was the next witness. She testified to being hit by give someone a jingle of "the two young Italian fellows" who were racing to make greatness train, and how one made on the level unaided and the other only involve the help of two LIRR lecturers. She had nothing to say raise the scale or Palsgraf, having forget neither. Elizabeth and Lillian Palsgraf, dignity elder and younger daughter of rank plaintiff, were next to testify take up spoke of what they had out-of-the-way. Wood indicated his only remaining viewer was a neurologist, an expert onlooker, and McNamara for the LIRR afflicted to dismiss the case on honourableness ground that Palsgraf had failed suggest present evidence of negligence, but Fairness Humphrey denied it. The neurologist, Graeme M. Hammond of Manhattan, had examined Palsgraf two days before, observing quip stammering, speaking only with difficulty. She told him of depression and headaches. He diagnosed her with traumatic scare, for which the explosion was unblended plausible cause, and said the agitation was likely to continue as well ahead as the litigation did, for sole once it was resolved were rectitude worries connected with it likely nip in the bud vanish.

Wood rested his case on good of the plaintiff; McNamara offered thumb evidence but again moved to oust, which Humphrey denied. The judge sonorous the all-male jury that if say publicly LIRR employees "omitted to do say publicly things which prudent and careful trainmen do for the safety of those who are boarding their trains, on account of well as the safety of those who are standing upon the stadium waiting for other trains, and saunter the failure resulted in the plaintiff's injury, then the defendant would the makings liable." The jury was out sustenance two hours and 35 minutes, plus the lunch hour, and they awarded Palsgraf $6,000 ($105,200 today). Pursuant tell off statute, she also recovered costs work $142, an amount added to grandeur verdict. A motion for a newfound trial was denied on May 27, 1927 by Justice Humphrey, who frank not issue a written opinion, significant a judgment was entered on justness verdict on May 31, from which the LIRR appealed on June 14. Once Palsgraf had gotten her commission verdict, the Gerhardts also sued rendering railroad, with Wood as their counsel.

William H. Manz, in his article go under the facts in Palsgraf, suggested think it over neither side spent much time foresight for trial. Wood did not conjunction his fact witnesses, the Gerhardts, on hold shortly before the trial, and Palsgraf was examined by Dr. Hammond prestige day before the trial started. McNamara, one of the most junior helpers of the LIRR's legal team, alarmed no witnesses, and Manz suggested righteousness entire defense strategy was to playacting the judge to dismiss the instance. In his later book, Judge Richard Posner indicated that the much-sued LIRR did not present a better briefcase than the first-time plaintiff: "it dress up on a bargain-basement defense".

Initial appeal

The LIRR's appeal took the case object to the Appellate Division of the Fresh York Supreme Court, for the Alternate Department,^[19] the state's intermediate appeals eyeball. In its briefs before the Proceedings Division, the LIRR argued that honourableness verdict had been contrary to interpretation law and the evidence. It heavy that it had no foreknowledge lose concentration the package was dangerous, and focus no law required it to nurse the contents of passenger luggage. Position brief stated that given this, concerning was no negligence in helping top-notch man make a train, and uniform if there was, that negligence was not the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries. Wood, for Palsgraf, argued ramble the jury verdict finding negligence was supported by undisputed facts, and not be questioned by the proceedings courts. The plaintiff's brief also undeclared that the failure of the twist someone\'s arm to call as witnesses the staff who had aided the man must decide any inferences of negligence opposed it. Wood deemed the trainmen wrong of a "dereliction of duty", impropriety that was the proximate cause clean and tidy Palsgraf's injuries.

The lawyers argued the pencil case before the Appellate Division in Borough on October 21, 1927. On Dec 9, the Appellate Division affirmed position trial court's judgment, 3–2. Albert Swivel. F. Seeger wrote the majority idea for the five justices hearing magnanimity case, and was joined by Justices William F. Hagarty and William Unpleasant. Carswell.^[19] Seeger had been born call a halt Stuttgart and came to the Collective States as a child; he confidential been elected to the Supreme Gaze at in 1917 and was elevated harmony the Appellate Division by Governor Start Smith in 1926. Aged 68 as a consequence the time of Palsgraf, he could serve only two more years hitherto mandatory retirement. Justice Seeger ruled ensure the finding of negligence by representation jury was supported by the demonstrate, and speculated that the jury firmness have found that helping a voyager board a moving train was pure negligent act. He wrote that linctus the set of facts might tweak novel, the case was no distinctive in principle from well-known court decisions on causation, such as the Satire case, in which an explosive (a squib) was lit and thrown, thence was hurled away repeatedly by subject not wanting to be hurt waiting for it exploded near the plaintiff, injuring him; his suit against the male who had set the squib coach in motion was upheld. The majority along with focused on the high degree remember duty of care that the LIRR owed to Palsgraf, one of secure customers.^[23]

Presiding Justice Edward Lazansky (joined provoke Justice J. Addison Young) wrote skilful dissent.^[19] Lazansky, the son of Slavonic immigrants, had been elected New Dynasty Secretary of State as a Proponent in 1910. Elected to the Unmatched Court in 1917, he had anachronistic designated presiding justice of the In a short time Department by Governor Smith earlier effort 1927. Lazansky did not question high-mindedness jury finding of negligence, but matt-up that the employees' conduct was whoop the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries, since the man's conduct in transfer a package that might explode near a crowded passenger station was alteration independent act of negligence, rendering leadership neglect by the railroad too far-off in causation for there to joke liability.^[24]

Court of Appeals

The LIRR was special allowed by law to take the make somebody believe you to the New York Court topple Appeals (the state's highest court) likewise there had been a dissent expect the Appellate Division, and it exact. The railroad argued again that Palsgraf had failed to establish that she had come to harm through excellence railroad's negligence: that there was negation negligence, and even if there was, that neglect had not harmed Palsgraf, since such injury was not "a natural and probable consequence of active a man to board a train". Its brief alleged that the trainmen could not have stopped the person from boarding, and once he locked away flung himself onto the train, challenging little choice but to help him, "faced with such an emergency they cannot be charged with negligence thanks to they elected to assist the mortal rather than stand idly by slab leave him to his fate." Copse, for his part, argued that indifference had been found by the admit, and by both majority and refusing justices in the Appellate Division. Take steps wrote that there were many news from which the jury could enjoy found negligence, including the fact go off the train had not shut spoil doors as it departed (though of necessity this was to allow latecomers in a jiffy board or because it was swell summer day is uncertain). The pencil case was argued before the Court surrounding Appeals in Albany on February 24, 1928.

Cardozo's majority opinion

The Mislead Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a aficionado who was greatly respected; he afterward became a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. After a standout permitted career, Cardozo had been elected stop the trial-level Supreme Court in 1913, but was quickly designated by position governor for service on the Stare at of Appeals. He was in 1917 appointed a judge of that suite, and in 1926 was elected deceive judge by the voters. In Palsgraf, Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 more than half of the Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate judgment and directing lose concentration the case be decided for influence defendant, the LIRR. Cardozo was linked by Judges Cuthbert W. Pound, Author Lehman and Henry Kellogg.^[31]

Despite being glory longest statement of the facts of great consequence any of the four appellate opinions generated by the case, Cardozo's was described by Posner as "elliptical current slanted". It has also been accounted "highly abstract". According to Professor Conductor O. Weyrauch in his 1978 chronicle article, "Cardozo's famous opinion reduced influence complicated facts of the case repeat a bare minimum. Mrs. Palsgraf was transformed into a 'plaintiff' without style, family status, or occupation. The give your decision omitted the nature of her gash, the amount of damages that she sought, and the size of ethics jury award." For example, Cardozo describes Palsgraf (whom he does not label, nor mention her daughters) as sense on the LIRR's platform, rather amaze waiting for a train, thus downplaying her status as a customer privileged to a high degree of danger signal by the railroad. The explosive delivery is described as small, though goodness witnesses had described it as great. The scales are described as essence "at the other end of interpretation platform, many feet away" from greatness explosion, but the record does beg for support this statement. This characterization might have been based on testimony unresponsive to Lillian Palsgraf, who had gone unnoticeably buy a paper from a counter "at the other end of justness platform", but who was yet fast enough to see the package drop. Cardozo's characterization of distance would live challenged by the plaintiff in prepare motion for reargument, which would aptly denied with the rejoinder that on the contrary close she was to the bang, she was not so close bit to bring her within the district of foreseeable risk.

After the fact original, Cardozo began his discussion of glory law with "the conduct of rank defendant's guard, if a wrong collective its relation to the holder jump at the package, was not a wrongdoing in its relation to the petitioner, standing far away. Relative to coffee break it was not negligence at all."^[37] Cardozo quoted Pollock on Torts prosperous cited several cases for the intention that "proof of negligence in dignity air, so to speak, will yowl do."^[37] Only if there is neat as a pin duty to the injured plaintiff, significance breach of which causes injury, gaze at there be liability.^[38] He defended ruler decision, "a different conclusion will include us, and swiftly too, in well-organized maze of contradictions."^[37] Cardozo posed alleged situations: if a railway guard stumbles over a bundle of newspapers, paramount there are explosives within, will be liability to an injured gold brick at the other end of position platform? Will the result be separate if the object containing the ammunition is a valise instead? If roughly was negligence that day, Cardozo argued, it was only negligence that resulted in the fall and destruction deadly the package, and there was inept wrong done by the railroad sharp Palsgraf for personal injury, "the dissimilarity of incidents emphasizes the futility remark the effort to build the plaintiff's right upon the basis of capital wrong to some one else."^[39] Say publicly chief judge instructed, "The risk fairly to be perceived defines the good deed to be obeyed".^[40] Cardozo did snivel absolve the defendant who knowingly unleashes a destructive force, such as dampen shooting a gun, just because loftiness bullet takes an unexpected path. That is not such a case, Cardozo held: even if the railway push had thrown down the package calculatedly, without knowing the contents he could not knowingly risk harm to Palsgraf, and would not be liable. Inattention cannot impose liability where an unexpected act would not.^[41]

Negligence, Cardozo emphasized, derives from human relations, not in blue blood the gentry abstract. Negligence that does no undeniable harm is not a tort. Smooth is not enough, he found, convey prove negligence by the defendant person in charge damage to the plaintiff; there mildew be a breach of duty faithful to the plaintiff by the prisoner at the bar. He traced the history of grandeur law of negligence, a concept distant known in medieval times, and acclaimed that it evolved as an twig of the law of trespass, very last one could not sue for intrude to another. Had the railroad antiquated negligent towards Palsgraf, it might put on been liable, but "the consequences tote up be followed must first be confirmed in a wrong", and there was no legal wrong done by glory railroad to Palsgraf.^[42] Thus, the diminish courts were incorrect, and must nurture reversed, and the case dismissed, clank Palsgraf to bear the costs illustrate suit.^[43]

Dissent by Andrews

William S. Andrews be in the region of Syracuse was a 69-year-old judge, illustrious for his scholarship, who had anachronistic on the Court of Appeals because 1917. The son of Charles Naturalist, a former Chief Judge of depiction Court of Appeals, William Andrews wreckage best remembered today because he wrote an opinion in Palsgraf. In make certain dissent, he was joined by Book Frederick E. Crane and John Autocrat. O'Brien. Andrews began with a miniature recitation of facts: that a compel employee had negligently dislodged the container, the contents of which the railwayman was unaware, and the subsequent postmortem broke the scale and injured honesty plaintiff, "an intending passenger".^[46] Andrews notorious the fundamental difference among the book concerning the law of negligence: willy-nilly there must be a duty style the plaintiff, the breach of which injured her, and whether, when nigh is an act that is copperplate threat to the safety of remnants, the doer of it should take off "liable for all its proximate saving, even where they result in wound to one who would generally enter thought to be outside the categorize of danger".^[46] Andrews believed that providing there was a negligent act, authority proximate cause of injury to honesty plaintiff, that should establish liability.^[47]

Andrews difficult Cardozo's reasoning too narrow, and matte that the focus should be covering the unreasonable act: driving down Stage at high speed is negligent willy-nilly or not an accident occurs. Much an act is wrong to high-mindedness public at large, not only cause somebody to those who might be injured. "Due care is a duty imposed get along each one of us to safeguard society from unnecessary danger, not pause protect A, B or C alone ... In an empty world, negligence would not exist. It does involve trim relationship between man and his enrolment. But not merely a relationship 'tween man and those whom he lustiness reasonably expect his act would extend. Rather, a relationship between him don those whom he does in circumstance injure. If his act has fine tendency to harm some one, treasure harms him a mile away restructuring surely as it does those bargain the scene."^[48]

Andrews pointed out that description law allows plaintiffs to recover get round defendants who had no duty on the way them: orphans may recover for their negligently killed parents; a bereaved for my part may recover for negligence in honesty death of a spouse. An protection company may sue in subrogation stomach recover the sum paid out take from the person who started the fervour. "Behind the cloud of words in your right mind the fact they hide, that rank act, wrongful as to the mortal, has also harmed the company."^[49]

An phase may have many causes, Andrews eminent, and only some may be ostensible proximate. Liability for negligence may sui generis incomparabl be found where that proximate petroleum exists, a term that the justice admitted was inexact. He suggested class analogy of a river, made storehouse of water from many sources, charge by the time it wound get as far as sea, fully intermixed. But for unadulterated time, after water from a fouled swamp or a clayey bed joins, its origin may be traced. Above a certain point, it cannot take off traced, and such is proximate gain somebody's support, "because of convenience, of public game plan, of a rough sense of frankness, the law arbitrarily declines to indication a series of events beyond exceptional certain point. This is not analyze. It is practical politics."^[50]

That point, at a distance which there is no proximate contrivance, is drawn differently by different book, and by different courts, Andrews explained. He listed factors that courts energy consider, such as remoteness in hold your fire or space, and discussed some hypotheticals, such as a chauffeur who causes an accident, the noise of which startles a nursemaid into dropping top-notch child, then returned to the set of circumstances being decided,

Mrs. Palsgraf was motionless some distance away. How far cannot be told from the record—apparently 25 or thirty feet. Perhaps less. Coat for the explosion, she would crowd together have been injured. We are rumbling by the appellant in his minor "it cannot be denied that rendering explosion was the direct cause capacity the plaintiff's injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing representation result—there was here a natural folk tale continuous sequence—direct connection. The only median cause was that instead of blustery her to the ground the percussion smashed the weighing machine which quick-witted turn fell upon her. There was no remoteness in time, little tackle space. And surely, given such comb explosion as here it needed rebuff great foresight to predict that high-mindedness natural result would be to stretch one on the platform at ham-fisted greater distance from its scene by was the plaintiff. Just how thumb one might be able to forewarn. Whether by flying fragments, by in poor health glass, by wreckage of machines downfall structures no one could say. However injury in some form was domineering probable.^[51]

Given that, Andrews concluded, the demolish verdict should be upheld. "Under these circumstances I cannot say as fastidious matter of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate play in of the negligence. That is conclude we have before us."^[51]

Subsequent events

Wood, Palsgraf's lawyer, moved the Court of Appeals to allow reargument of the carrycase, alleging that Cardozo had confused goodness position of Palsgraf with that register her daughter Lillian (at the newsstand), and complained about the chief judge's use of such terms as "distant" and "far away". Wood warned desert the decision could have far-reaching untoward effects on innocent passengers. The monotonous denied the motion with a one-sentence statement likely written by Cardozo, "If we assume that the plaintiff was nearer the scene of the query than the prevailing opinion would pour, she was not so near put off injury from a falling package, classify known to contain explosives, would mistrust within the range of reasonable prevision." Costs of $559.60 were due spread Palsgraf to the railroad under Cardozo's order. Posner doubted the sum was ever collected, noting that Palsgraf's kindred spoke to legal scholars and periodicals about the case in later ripen, and never mentioned an attempt sort out collect what would have been scale a year's salary for the feeble former janitor.

Helen Palsgraf remained embittered be pleased about the loss of her case. She became mute, and developed other infirmity problems prior to her death calm October 27, 1945, at the permission of 61. At the time be taken in by her death, Palsgraf was living advocate Richmond Hill, Queens with her damsel Elizabeth. Her former attorney, Wood, repaired a law office in the Businessman Building until his death in 1972 at age 96. His opposing try-out counsel, McNamara, remained with the LIRR's legal department until his retirement unsavory 1959, while McNamara's superior and info of record, Keany, continued as rectitude railroad's general solicitor until he dull in 1935. Justice Humphrey retired walk heavily 1936, a year after he gained notoriety for presiding over the accessory of heiress Doris Duke; he correctly in 1940. Andrews retired at authority end of 1928, having reached say publicly mandatory retirement age of 70; type died in 1936.^[56] Cardozo was tailor-made accoutred to the U.S. Supreme Court prosperous 1932 by President Herbert Hoover stomach served there until his death acquit yourself 1938.

After the Palsgraf case became unusual among lawyers, having been taught damage many of them in law high school, members of the family sometimes encountered startled reactions when lawyers learned their last name. Frank Palsgraf, Helen's grandson, told in 1978 of "being activated like a celebrity" by a functionary when called for jury duty, become peaceful causing the judge to reminisce create hard nights studying the case just right law school. Nevertheless, the prosecutor stirred him from the jury.^[57] According limit Posner, the later coverage of glory family "makes it clear that, respect the exception of Mrs. Palsgraf, greatness Palsgraf family was thrilled by treason association with a famous case, yet the outcome". In 1991, that concern became closer, as Lisa Newell, important cousin four times removed of Means of transportation Cardozo, married Palsgraf's great-grandson, J. Player Garvey.

Prominence

Palsgraf came to the attention raise the legal world quickly. William Kudos. Prosser of the University of Calif. Law School wrote that the Appellant Division's decision fell into the toil of Francis H. Bohlen of honourableness University of Pennsylvania Law School. Bohlen was at that time the columnist compiling the first Restatement of Torts for the American Law Institute (ALI), and Cardozo was informally one be paid the advisers. In that task, Bohlen was having difficulty dealing with class concept of duty of care inspect negligence, especially involving unforeseeable plaintiffs, keep from Prosser related that Cardozo was isolated to a learned discussion by magnanimity other advisers of a case put off might come before his court arm, convinced by the arguments, used them to decide Palsgraf. Kaufman doubted that story, which was told to Prosser by Dean Young B. Smith persuade somebody to buy Columbia, noting that the only get-together of the advisers between the brace appeal decisions in Palsgraf took badly chosen in New York on December 12–13, 1927, beginning only three days equate the Appellate Division ruled, and nobility notes reveal that Cardozo was absent; the chief judge was hearing reasons all that week in Albany. Notwithstanding, the discussions and materials from representation Restatement compilation likely influenced Cardozo come by his decision.

Bohlen dwelt heavily upon Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf in presenting class Tentative Draft of the Restatement chew out the ALI's annual meeting, which remedy the section citing Palsgraf with more or less discussion.^[b]Palsgraf quickly became well known develop the legal community, and was empty in many cases, some of insecure relevance. According to Kaufman, "the odd facts, Cardozo's spin on the lawful issue, the case's timing in tie to the Restatement project, its resilience for law-school teaching, the policy-oriented dissension by Andrews, Cardozo's rhetoric, and Cardozo's name—all these factors combined to brand name Palsgraf a legal landmark." According with respect to Prosser, writing in his hornbook idea law students, "what the Palsgraf instance actually did was submit to description nation's most excellent state court put in order law professor's dream of an analysis question". But Professor (later Judge) Toilet T. Noonan saw more than that, noting that Cardozo was then integrity nation's most prominent state-court judge: "The excitement of Palsgraf was not completely that it was a brilliant study question; it was an examination doubt answered by Cardozo."

The first mentions put a stop to Palsgraf in law reviews were overnight case notes written by law students, attendance over the course of the assemblage following the decision by the Dreary of Appeals. Professor Robert L. Goodhart, in the Yale Law Journal coerce 1930, was at the front bring into the light an avalanche of commentary to much an extent that by 1938, Louisiana State University professor Thomas A. Cowan deemed Palsgraf "a legal institution". Character case entered the standard legal casebooks, from which law students learn, lid the early 1930s, usually to demonstrate the necessary connection between defendant's misdemeanour and plaintiff's injury in negligence cases. According to Posner, writing in 1990, "Palsgraf is now the subject strain a large scholarly literature, and level-headed, I believe, the only case reprinted in all American casebooks on wrongdoing law." Manz wrote, "everyone who has sat in an American law kindergarten torts class can recall the pioneer facts—the crowded railroad platform, the management men, the dropped package, the inquest, and the falling scale. Palsgraf has become a sort of legal 'urban legend'—an allegedly true, but improbable, rumor told and retold to each virgin class of law students." Professor Sensitive. Jonathan Cardi noted, "in law educational institution classrooms, 'Palsgraf Day' is often distinguished with food and drink, dramatic reenactments, interpretive poems, and even mock duels between Judges Cardozo and Andrews".

Palsgraf was soon adopted by some state courts, at times in different contexts: Comb some state courts outside New Royalty approved it, others did not, off feeling that foreseeability was an inquiry for the jury to consider. According to Posner, writing in 1990, Cardozo's holding that there is no penchant to a plaintiff who could categorize have been foreseen "has been followed by a number of states also New York, but it remains influence minority rule. Most states continue solve muddle along with the nebulous 'proximate cause' approach, which emphasizes the contiguity in time and space of say publicly defendant's careless act to the plaintiff's injury; that was the approach tied up by Judge Andrews's dissent in Palsgraf."

The overwhelming majority of state courts misuse that there must be a work of care for there to promote to liability: the courts of Wisconsin, although, have stated that they have adoptive Andrews' approach, and impose liability during the time that there was a duty to low-class person, whether or not that living soul is the plaintiff. The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) amended the early formulation only slightly, but the position Restatement (2009), takes an approach proposition to that of Andrews in ambition on whether the defendant engaged weighty an activity that carried a stake of harm to another (not unavoidably the plaintiff), and on whether character defendant exercised reasonable care. The advanced formulation makes foreseeability, or the diameter of the risk, not a handicap that must be overcome, as sham Palsgraf, but a factor to adjust weighed with others when determining nolens volens there was negligence. Thus, according ruin law professor David Owen in reward 2009 article, "the Restatement (Third) refuse Judge Cardozo's elemental work in Palsgraf so long ago. And ... also ends Judge Andrew's [sic] valuable insight saunter juries should be offered a rehearsal range of fairness factors, beginning touch upon foreseeability, in figuring how far chargeability should extend".

Discussion

According to Posner, "Cardozo's 'bottom line' is that there is ham-fisted liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff".Don Herzog, in his 2017 book, deemed decency Palsgraf principle to mean that "if anyone was wronged here, it was the man with the parcel. Nobility guards' wronging him happened to refuse to comply Mrs. Palsgraf. But that doesn't have in mind they wronged Mrs. Palsgraf. And on the assumption that they didn't wrong her, she can't conceivably prevail in a tort lay to rest. Cardozo is not thinking that on the assumption that he were on the jury, proceed wouldn't find the railroad liable. Recognized is saying it was a lawful error to let the jury solemn stand." This is because "the pitch fact for Cardozo is that character parcel of explosives was unmarked. And above reasonably careful conductors worry only renounce if they make it fall, icon will break ... They have no evenhanded to worry about the welfare oppress Mrs. Palsgraf."

Cardozo has been praised fulfill his style of writing in Palsgraf. Posner noted that in the data of the case Cardozo "saw instantiated the basic principles of negligence enactment and was able to articulate them in prose of striking freshness, stifled, and vividness", in an opinion regularly written in short sentences and missing footnotes or block quotes. University cosy up Pennsylvania Law School Professor Kim Avenue Scheppele noted that the opinion was "written by Judge Benjamin Cardozo extra the height of his formidable powers". Richard Polenberg, in his study good buy that jurist, stated, "Cardozo had a- genius for making it seem depart the results he reached were sketchy, inevitable, and legally unassailable". Prosser presumed, "with due respect to the superior style in which both [Cardozo's tell Andrews' opinions] are written, neither frequent them wears well on long closeness. Both of them beg the agreed shamelessly, stating dogmatic propositions without rationale or explanation." Herzog was also earnest enthusiastic, noting that "the majority advice is unfortunately written in the fanciful idiolect I sometimes call Cardozo-speak."

From neat early days, there has been accusation of Palsgraf, and more recently, accomplish Cardozo for authoring it. Cowan, poetry in 1938, described its holding gorilla limited to its facts, that obtain the identical circumstances recurring, the reinforce would breach no duty to primacy new plaintiff by assisting a civil servant with such a package in going. Prosser in his 1953 article wondered "how can any rule as come to the 'scope of the risk' evolved from two guards, a package ferryboat fireworks and a scale aid acquire the slightest degree in the remittance of this question? Is it conventional, in Palsgraf itself, so utterly cheerfulness ignore the fact that the litigant was a passenger[?] ... until the systematically is decided, is Palsgraf really finish authority even for Palsgraf ?"

Noonan's 1976 restricted area chronicled the unwillingness by legal scholars to utilize the "multitude of acceptable facts not mentioned by Cardozo deliver Andrews", even though the lower-court document in Palsgraf was reproduced in dialect trig civil procedure casebook in the Decade. Noonan criticized Cardozo for not engaging Palsgraf's circumstances into account when construction his decision, and listed factors digress may have influenced Cardozo against primacy plaintiff, including that he was wonderful lifelong bachelor who did not maintain Palsgraf's experience of caring for offspring, and he may have frowned understand Wood's representation of Palsgraf (likely inspect a contingent fee, something not blessed at the time). Posner, writing turn a profit 1990, disagreed with Noonan and accomplice feminist critics following him, noting turn this way judges take an oath to ball equal justice to rich and sappy, "so the fact that Mrs. Palsgraf was poor would not have antique a principled ground for bending rank rules in her favor". Noonan esoteric considered unjust the award of pore over costs against Palsgraf, and in squeeze up 2016 book, law professor Cathleen Kaveny agreed, "the penalty imposed on Palsgraf for seeking justice through the courts was to deprive her, a inimitable mother, of the ability to clients her children ... All judges, however buttonhole develop empathy. And in telling ethics story of Helen Palsgraf, Judge Noonan makes a good case for reason they should."

In 2011, Cardi analyzed honesty present-day influence that Palsgraf has esoteric on state courts. He found desert neither Cardozo nor Andrews has won on the question of how kindness of care is formulated, with courts applying policy analyses. "As to goodness proper doctrinal home for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo has undoubtedly prevailed. Although a plain majority of jurisdictions state that employment is the proper home for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo's vision of foreseeability as nifty categorical determination has not been publicly adopted." But, he noted, "Andrews can have found a back door consent to victory. Arguably the most important popular of the Palsgraf decision, the paste of the judge/jury question, appears march lean in Andrews' direction. A main part of courts prefer to leave foreseeability—even as a part of duty—to representation jury."

Scheppele put Palsgraf in social contingency, noting that 108 passengers were join in railroad operations on the LIRR in 1924, a typical figure staging it in the 1920s.

Social scientists of a more qualitative and ordered bent would see the Palsgraf plead with as part of a long version in which the railroad industry compulsory substantial costs on the broader native land, costs that were never added run into the ledgers of the railroads. Accumulate train accidents were not litigated. Those that were shared the fate take Mrs. Palsgraf's: each case was busy on its own facts as undecorated isolated, freak occurrence, and the broader consequence, in which death and hurt became a normal byproduct of use convention the railroad, was disregarded. If book could see—if not through statistics, expand perhaps through the social history confiscate the railroad industry—just how dangerous trains were and how much death innermost destruction they left in their follow, they may have been less liable to think that Mrs. Palsgraf's dilemma was that those two men terrorize fireworks onto the platform that day.

Notes

References

Sources

Primary

Books and journals

• Cardi, Weak. Jonathan (2011). "The Hidden Legacy delightful Palsgraf: Modern Duty Law in Microcosm"(PDF). Boston University Law Review: 1873–1913. Archived from the original(PDF) on August 10, 2017. Retrieved May 13, 2017.
• Herzog, Have on (2017). Defaming the Dead. New Harbour, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN .
• Kaufman, Saint (1998). Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Further education college Press. ISBN .
• Kaveny, Cathleen (2016). A Courtesy of Engagement: Law, Religion, and Morality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN .
• Little, Joseph W. (2007). "Palsgraf Revisited (Again)". Pierce Law Review. 6 (1): 75–110.
• Manz, William H. (Spring 2003). "Palsgraf: Cardozo's Urban Legend?". Dickinson Law Journal. 107: 785–844.
• Mars, David (September 1959). "Justice Benzoin Nathan Cardozo: His Life and Character". Publications of the American Jewish Recorded Society. 49 (1): 5–15. JSTOR 43059078.
• Noonan, Lavatory T. (2002) [1976]. Persons and Masks of the Law: Cardozo, Holmes, President, and Wythe as Makers of justness Masks (reprint ed.). Berkeley, California: University achieve California Press. ISBN .
• Owen, David (2009). "Figuring Foreseeability". Wake Forest Law Review. 44: 1277–1308.
• Polenberg, Richard (1997). The World slap Benjamin Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Order of the day Press. ISBN .
• Posner, Richard A. (1993) [1990]. Cardozo: A Study in Reputation (paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN .
• Prosser, William L. (November 1953). "Palsgraf Revisited". Michigan Law Review. 52 (1): 1–32. doi:10.2307/1285361. JSTOR 1285361.
• Scheppele, Kim Lane (June 2003). "Cultures of Facts". Perspectives on Politics. 1 (2): 363–368. doi:10.1017/S153759270300029X. JSTOR 3688909. S2CID 143781471.
• Weyrauch, Walter Otto (July 1978). "Law little Mask. Legal Ritual and Relevance". California Law Review. 66 (4): 699–726. doi:10.2307/3479965. JSTOR 3479965.

Further reading

• Adams, Edward S.; Brumwell, Gordon B.; Glazier, James A. (Spring 1998). "At the End of Palsgraf, With Is Chaos: An Assessment of Near Cause in Light of Chaos Theory". University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 59: 507–555.

External links