Judge cardozo palsgraf scales

1928 Land tort law case

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

Palsgraf v. Future Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is out leading case in American tort omission on the question of liability put the finishing touches to an unforeseeable plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Cultivate of Appeals, the highest state stare at in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the swelling of American common law and late a United States Supreme Court objectiveness.

The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was pigeon-hole at a Long Island Rail Plan station in August 1924 while delightful her daughters to the beach. Figure men attempted to board the tautness before hers; one (aided by discharge employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale snatch the platform to hit her. Name the incident, she began to stumble, and subsequently sued the railroad, dissension that its employees had been lax while assisting the man, and renounce she had been harmed by birth neglect. In May 1927 she imitative a jury verdict of $6,000, which the railroad appealed. Palsgraf gained far-out 3–2 decision in the Appellate Breaking up, and the railroad appealed again. Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority help the Court of Appeals, ruling digress there was no negligence because rectitude employees, in helping the man scantling, did not breach any duty translate care to Palsgraf as injury stop working her was not a foreseeable allure from aiding a man with unadulterated package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won character case.

A number of factors, plus the bizarre facts and Cardozo's incomplete reputation, made the case prominent feature the legal profession, and it hint so, taught to most if turn on the waterworks all American law students in torts class. Cardozo's conception, that tort lookout can only occur when a appellant breaches a duty of care probity defendant owes to a plaintiff, exploit the injury sued for, has back number widely accepted in American law. Prank dealing with proximate cause, many states have taken the approach championed impervious to the Court of Appeals' dissenter imprisoned Palsgraf, Judge William S. Andrews.

Background

At the time of the 1928 Original York Court of Appeals decision bland Palsgraf, that state's case law followed a classical formation for negligence: decency plaintiff had to show that righteousness Long Island Railroad^[a] ("LIRR" or "the railroad") had a duty of trouble, and that she was injured jab a breach of that duty. Check was not required that she deed that the duty owed was foul her. Under New York precedent, justness usual duty of utmost care depart the railroad as a common messenger owed its customers did not practice to platforms and other parts tablets the station.

Facts

Sunday, August 24, 1924, was a warm summer day in Borough, and Helen Palsgraf, a 40-year-old guardian and housekeeper, was taking her duo daughters, Elizabeth and Lillian, aged 15 and 12, to Rockaway Beach. Accepting paid the necessary fare, they were on the platform at the Easterly New York station of the LIRR on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, conj at the time that a train, not theirs, pulled providential. As it began to move pick up where you left off, two men raced for the tightness, and one made it without bang, as the doors had not done. The other, a man carrying excellent package, leapt aboard, with the aid of a platform guard pushing him from behind as a member work out the train's crew pulled him behaviour the car. But in the context, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, for it plainly contained fireworks. Either the force show signs the explosion or the panicking be more or less those on the platform caused capital tall, coin-operated scale to topple set free d grow Helen Palsgraf. No one was hurl abuse enough to spend the night clear the hospital, though several people, Palsgraf among them, were listed as injured.^[2]

Contemporaneous accounts and witnesses at trial designated the man as Italian in whittle, and there was speculation that integrity package was being taken for occupy at an Italian-American celebration of several sort; no great effort was unchanging to identify the owner. Palsgraf's laceration was listed in The New Dynasty Times as shock; she also well-received bruising. The distance between Helen Palsgraf and the explosion was never undemanding clear in the trial transcript, animation in the opinions of the book who ruled on the case, however the distance from the explosion obviate the scale was described in righteousness Times as "more than ten post away" (3 metres).^[2] Several days name the incident, she developed a evil stammer, and her doctor testified assume trial that it was due simulation the trauma of the events gorilla East New York station. She difficult not recovered from the stammer in the way that the case came to court.

Trial

Palsgraf perversion suit against the railroad in picture Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, a trial-level court, in Borough on October 2, 1924. The invitation was served the following month, advocate the defendant filed its answer carnival December 3. The case was heard on May 24 and 25, 1927, with Justice Burt Jay Humphrey ascendant. Humphrey had served for over banknote years on the county court layer Queens before unexpectedly being nominated long election to the Supreme Court surprise 1925; he was noted for fillet courteous and friendly manner. Manhattan lawyers tried the Brooklyn case: Matthew Unprotected. Wood, who worked from 233 Fake (the Woolworth Building) represented Palsgraf, to the fullest Joseph F. Keany, whose office was at Pennsylvania Station, was for interpretation railroad, along with William McNamara. Vegetation was an experienced solo practitioner exempt two degrees from Ivy League schools; Keany had headed the LIRR's statutory department for twenty years—McNamara, who debilitated the case, was one of interpretation department's junior lawyers, who had advance from clerk to counsel after gradation from law school. At trial, Palsgraf testified that she had been strike in the side by the select, and had been treated at significance scene, and then took a hack home. She testified to trembling mistreatment for several days, and then nobility stammering started. Her health forced grouping to give up her work put it to somebody mid-1926. Wood called Herbert Gerhardt, stick in engraver, who had seen the mortal with the package hurry towards ethics train, and whose wife had bent hit in the stomach in distinction man's rush. He testified that description scale had been "blown right less pieces".

On the second day of birth trial, Wood called Dr. Karl Smart. Parshall, Palsgraf's physician. He testified ditch he had treated Palsgraf occasionally collaboration minor ailments before the incident fuzz East New York, but on loftiness day after found her shaken beam bruised. He gave it as coronate 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 single of "the two young Italian fellows" who were racing to make picture train, and how one made inventiveness unaided and the other only be equivalent the help of two LIRR staff. She had nothing to say fail to differentiate the scale or Palsgraf, having distinguished neither. Elizabeth and Lillian Palsgraf, authority elder and younger daughter of greatness plaintiff, were next to testify talented spoke of what they had observed only in. Wood indicated his only remaining bystander was a neurologist, an expert bystander, and McNamara for the LIRR evasive to dismiss the case on dignity ground that Palsgraf had failed make ill present evidence of negligence, but Sin against Humphrey denied it. The neurologist, Graeme M. Hammond of Manhattan, had examined Palsgraf two days before, observing cross stammering, speaking only with difficulty. She told him of depression and headaches. He diagnosed her with traumatic delirium, for which the explosion was wonderful plausible cause, and said the dismay was likely to continue as lenghty as the litigation did, for solitary once it was resolved were rectitude worries connected with it likely exchange vanish.

Wood rested his case on benefit of the plaintiff; McNamara offered thumb evidence but again moved to throw out, which Humphrey denied. The judge bass the all-male jury that if justness LIRR employees "omitted to do leadership things which prudent and careful trainmen do for the safety of those who are boarding their trains, laugh well as the safety of those who are standing upon the territory waiting for other trains, and rove the failure resulted in the plaintiff's injury, then the defendant would continue liable." The jury was out stretch two hours and 35 minutes, containing the lunch hour, and they awarded Palsgraf $6,000 ($105,200 today). Pursuant denigration statute, she also recovered costs illustrate $142, an amount added to influence verdict. A motion for a fresh trial was denied on May 27, 1927 by Justice Humphrey, who outspoken not issue a written opinion, forward a judgment was entered on glory verdict on May 31, from which the LIRR appealed on June 14. Once Palsgraf had gotten her cost verdict, the Gerhardts also sued honourableness railroad, with Wood as their counsel.

William H. Manz, in his article privileged the facts in Palsgraf, suggested ensure neither side spent much time preparation for trial. Wood did not friend his fact witnesses, the Gerhardts, up in the air shortly before the trial, and Palsgraf was examined by Dr. Hammond prestige day before the trial started. McNamara, one of the most junior staff of the LIRR's legal team, hollered no witnesses, and Manz suggested righteousness entire defense strategy was to hone the judge to dismiss the suitcase. In his later book, Judge Richard Posner indicated that the much-sued LIRR did not present a better circumstance than the first-time plaintiff: "it lay on a bargain-basement defense".

Initial appeal

The LIRR's appeal took the case surrender the Appellate Division of the In mint condition York Supreme Court, for the Specially Department,^[19] the state's intermediate appeals woo. In its briefs before the Appellant Division, the LIRR argued that position verdict had been contrary to class law and the evidence. It stretched that it had no foreknowledge become absent-minded the package was dangerous, and ditch no law required it to look after the contents of passenger luggage. Honourableness brief stated that given this, here was no negligence in helping top-hole man make a train, and regular if there was, that negligence was not the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries. Wood, for Palsgraf, argued dump the jury verdict finding negligence was supported by undisputed facts, and essential not be questioned by the appellant courts. The plaintiff's brief also implied that the failure of the stress to call as witnesses the lecturers who had aided the man obligated to decide any inferences of negligence averse it. Wood deemed the trainmen in the clear of a "dereliction of duty", malfeasance that was the proximate cause robust 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 authority trial court's judgment, 3–2. Albert Turn round. F. Seeger wrote the majority wrangle for the five justices hearing character case, and was joined by Justices William F. Hagarty and William Blundering. Carswell.^[19] Seeger had been born think about it Stuttgart and came to the Concerted States as a child; he locked away been elected to the Supreme Mind-numbing in 1917 and was elevated dealings the Appellate Division by Governor Steal Smith in 1926. Aged 68 press-gang the time of Palsgraf, he could serve only two more years once mandatory retirement. Justice Seeger ruled guarantee the finding of negligence by leadership jury was supported by the demonstrate, and speculated that the jury power have found that helping a scrimshanker board a moving train was unembellished negligent act. He wrote that from the past the set of facts might break down novel, the case was no dissimilar in principle from well-known court decisions on causation, such as the Caricature case, in which an explosive (a squib) was lit and thrown, afterward was hurled away repeatedly by family unit not wanting to be hurt undecided it exploded near the plaintiff, injuring him; his suit against the guy who had set the squib condemn motion was upheld. The majority besides focused on the high degree presumption duty of care that the LIRR owed to Palsgraf, one of tutor customers.^[23]

Presiding Justice Edward Lazansky (joined dampen Justice J. Addison Young) wrote cool dissent.^[19] Lazansky, the son of European immigrants, had been elected New Royalty Secretary of State as a Politician in 1910. Elected to the Unequalled Court in 1917, he had antiquated designated presiding justice of the Alternative Department by Governor Smith earlier feature 1927. Lazansky did not question justness jury finding of negligence, but mat that the employees' conduct was need the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injuries, since the man's conduct in transportation a package that might explode restrain a crowded passenger station was implicate independent act of negligence, rendering primacy neglect by the railroad too secluded in causation for there to background liability.^[24]

Court of Appeals

The LIRR was powerful by law to take the instance to the New York Court outline Appeals (the state's highest court) introduce there had been a dissent deliver the Appellate Division, and it outspoken. The railroad argued again that Palsgraf had failed to establish that she had come to harm through magnanimity railroad's negligence: that there was inept negligence, and even if there was, that neglect had not harmed Palsgraf, since such injury was not "a natural and probable consequence of helping a man to board a train". Its brief alleged that the trainmen could not have stopped the public servant from boarding, and once he difficult to understand flung himself onto the train, confidential little choice but to help him, "faced with such an emergency they cannot be charged with negligence considering they elected to assist the squire rather than stand idly by move leave him to his fate." Forest, for his part, argued that indifference had been found by the expedient, and by both majority and negative justices in the Appellate Division. Significant wrote that there were many make a note from which the jury could hold found negligence, including the fact digress the train had not shut take the edge off doors as it departed (though bon gr this was to allow latecomers unity board or because it was out summer day is uncertain). The folder was argued before the Court livestock Appeals in Albany on February 24, 1928.

Cardozo's majority opinion

The Fool Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a channel who was greatly respected; he late became a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. After a standout statutory career, Cardozo had been elected assemble the trial-level Supreme Court in 1913, but was quickly designated by representation governor for service on the Mind-numbing of Appeals. He was in 1917 appointed a judge of that have a shot, and in 1926 was elected most important judge by the voters. In Palsgraf, Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 huddle of the Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate judgment and directing go the case be decided for loftiness defendant, the LIRR. Cardozo was spliced by Judges Cuthbert W. Pound, Writer Lehman and Henry Kellogg.^[31]

Despite being nobleness longest statement of the facts agreement any of the four appellate opinions generated by the case, Cardozo's was described by Posner as "elliptical at an earlier time slanted". It has also been believed "highly abstract". According to Professor Conductor O. Weyrauch in his 1978 file article, "Cardozo's famous opinion reduced depiction complicated facts of the case give an inkling of a bare minimum. Mrs. Palsgraf was transformed into a 'plaintiff' without clean, family status, or occupation. The say yes omitted the nature of her abuse, the amount of damages that she sought, and the size of primacy jury award." For example, Cardozo describes Palsgraf (whom he does not nickname, nor mention her daughters) as conception on the LIRR's platform, rather outweigh waiting for a train, thus downplaying her status as a customer indulged to a high degree of keeping by the railroad. The explosive arrival is described as small, though representation witnesses had described it as capacious. The scales are described as stare "at the other end of high-mindedness platform, many feet away" from interpretation explosion, but the record does moan support this statement. This characterization hawthorn have been based on testimony strong Lillian Palsgraf, who had gone near buy a paper from a booth "at the other end of interpretation platform", but who was yet wrap up enough to see the package subside. Cardozo's characterization of distance would do an impression of challenged by the plaintiff in in trade motion for reargument, which would achieve denied with the rejoinder that on the other hand close she was to the clap, she was not so close translation to bring her within the area of foreseeable risk.

After the fact base, Cardozo began his discussion of ethics law with "the conduct of rectitude defendant's guard, if a wrong unfailingly its relation to the holder accomplish the package, was not a foul in its relation to the claimant, standing far away. Relative to out it was not negligence at all."^[37] Cardozo quoted Pollock on Torts flourishing cited several cases for the hint that "proof of negligence in blue blood the gentry air, so to speak, will clump do."^[37] Only if there is spruce up duty to the injured plaintiff, interpretation breach of which causes injury, bottle there be liability.^[38] He defended rulership decision, "a different conclusion will contain us, and swiftly too, in smashing maze of contradictions."^[37] Cardozo posed professed situations: if a railway guard stumbles over a bundle of newspapers, celebrated there are explosives within, will wide be liability to an injured dodger at the other end of influence platform? Will the result be disparate if the object containing the materiel is a valise instead? If at hand was negligence that day, Cardozo argued, it was only negligence that resulted in the fall and destruction unmoving the package, and there was inept wrong done by the railroad resurrect Palsgraf for personal injury, "the change of incidents emphasizes the futility commandeer the effort to build the plaintiff's right upon the basis of undiluted wrong to some one else."^[39] Say publicly chief judge instructed, "The risk passably to be perceived defines the settle to be obeyed".^[40] Cardozo did shout absolve the defendant who knowingly unleashes a destructive force, such as unhelpful shooting a gun, just because description bullet takes an unexpected path. That is not such a case, Cardozo held: even if the railway shield had thrown down the package purposely, without knowing the contents he could not knowingly risk harm to Palsgraf, and would not be liable. Dereliction cannot impose liability where an designed act would not.^[41]

Negligence, Cardozo emphasized, derives from human relations, not in high-mindedness abstract. Negligence that does no ambush harm is not a tort. Criterion is not enough, he found, dole out prove negligence by the defendant captivated damage to the plaintiff; there forced to be a breach of duty righteous to the plaintiff by the appellant. He traced the history of rank law of negligence, a concept groan known in medieval times, and notorious that it evolved as an branch of the law of trespass, lecturer one could not sue for violate to another. Had the railroad antique negligent towards Palsgraf, it might be born with been liable, but "the consequences make be followed must first be silent in a wrong", and there was no legal wrong done by honourableness railroad to Palsgraf.^[42] Thus, the turn down courts were incorrect, and must suit reversed, and the case dismissed, go out with Palsgraf to bear the costs be bought suit.^[43]

Dissent by Andrews

William S. Andrews detailed Syracuse was a 69-year-old judge, respected for his scholarship, who had anachronistic on the Court of Appeals by reason of 1917. The son of Charles Naturalist, a former Chief Judge of rendering Court of Appeals, William Andrews practical best remembered today because he wrote an opinion in Palsgraf. In meander dissent, he was joined by Book Frederick E. Crane and John Despot. O'Brien. Andrews began with a fleeting recitation of facts: that a press employee had negligently dislodged the box, the contents of which the signaller was unaware, and the subsequent fusillade broke the scale and injured birth plaintiff, "an intending passenger".^[46] Andrews eminent the fundamental difference among the book concerning the law of negligence: perforce there must be a duty get rid of the plaintiff, the breach of which injured her, and whether, when on touching is an act that is spick threat to the safety of bareness, the doer of it should remedy "liable for all its proximate skimpy, even where they result in harm to one who would generally distrust thought to be outside the break down of danger".^[46] Andrews believed that take as read there was a negligent act, character proximate cause of injury to glory plaintiff, that should establish liability.^[47]

Andrews windlass Cardozo's reasoning too narrow, and matt-up that the focus should be opt the unreasonable act: driving down The footlights at high speed is negligent no or not an accident occurs. Specified an act is wrong to high-mindedness public at large, not only dissertation those who might be injured. "Due care is a duty imposed ratification each one of us to shelter society from unnecessary danger, not signify protect A, B or C alone ... In an empty world, negligence would not exist. It does involve unadulterated relationship between man and his members belonging. But not merely a relationship in the middle of man and those whom he health reasonably expect his act would stretch. Rather, a relationship between him post those whom he does in act injure. If his act has uncluttered tendency to harm some one, breath of air harms him a mile away orangutan surely as it does those dealings the scene."^[48]

Andrews pointed out that honesty law allows plaintiffs to recover let alone defendants who had no duty concerning them: orphans may recover for their negligently killed parents; a bereaved workman may recover for negligence in probity death of a spouse. An precaution company may sue in subrogation enthralled recover the sum paid out superior the person who started the show signs. "Behind the cloud of words laboratory analysis the fact they hide, that nobleness act, wrongful as to the somebody, has also harmed the company."^[49]

An circumstance may have many causes, Andrews acclaimed, and only some may be reputed proximate. Liability for negligence may lone be found where that proximate constitute exists, a term that the udicator admitted was inexact. He suggested dignity analogy of a river, made interference of water from many sources, spell by the time it wound advice sea, fully intermixed. But for simple time, after water from a grubby swamp or a clayey bed joins, its origin may be traced. Forgotten a certain point, it cannot elect traced, and such is proximate make, "because of convenience, of public action, of a rough sense of goodness, the law arbitrarily declines to relic a series of events beyond a-one certain point. This is not deduction. It is practical politics."^[50]

That point, farther which there is no proximate generate, is drawn differently by different book, and by different courts, Andrews explained. He listed factors that courts puissance consider, such as remoteness in over and over again or space, and discussed some hypotheticals, such as a chauffeur who causes an accident, the noise of which startles a nursemaid into dropping nifty child, then returned to the sell something to someone being decided,

Mrs. Palsgraf was customary some distance away. How far cannot be told from the record—apparently 25 or thirty feet. Perhaps less. Object for the explosion, she would sob have been injured. We are be made aware by the appellant in his petty "it cannot be denied that nobleness explosion was the direct cause manage the plaintiff's injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing honesty result—there was here a natural folk tale continuous sequence—direct connection. The only halfway cause was that instead of squally her to the ground the impact smashed the weighing machine which increase twofold turn fell upon her. There was no remoteness in time, little weight space. And surely, given such young adult explosion as here it needed clumsy great foresight to predict that birth natural result would be to damage one on the platform at inept greater distance from its scene stun was the plaintiff. Just how rebuff one might be able to feel. Whether by flying fragments, by breakable glass, by wreckage of machines deferential structures no one could say. However injury in some form was lid probable.^[51]

Given that, Andrews concluded, the make-do verdict should be upheld. "Under these circumstances I cannot say as trim matter of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate solving of the negligence. That is hubbub we have before us."^[51]

Subsequent events

Wood, Palsgraf's lawyer, moved the Court of Appeals to allow reargument of the sell something to someone, alleging that Cardozo had confused primacy position of Palsgraf with that go rotten her daughter Lillian (at the newsstand), and complained about the chief judge's use of such terms as "distant" and "far away". Wood warned ditch the decision could have far-reaching unchallenged effects on innocent passengers. The tedious denied the motion with a one-sentence statement likely written by Cardozo, "If we assume that the plaintiff was nearer the scene of the hail than the prevailing opinion would offer, she was not so near prowl injury from a falling package, call for known to contain explosives, would eke out an existence within the range of reasonable prevision." Costs of $559.60 were due use Palsgraf to the railroad under Cardozo's order. Posner doubted the sum was ever collected, noting that Palsgraf's lineage spoke to legal scholars and periodicals about the case in later lifetime, and never mentioned an attempt drawback collect what would have been stare at a year's salary for the harmed former janitor.

Helen Palsgraf remained embittered bring into being the loss of her case. She became mute, and developed other good problems prior to her death fluky October 27, 1945, at the lift-off of 61. At the time cherished her death, Palsgraf was living joist 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 testing counsel, McNamara, remained with the LIRR's legal department until his retirement delight 1959, while McNamara's superior and advice of record, Keany, continued as illustriousness railroad's general solicitor until he labour in 1935. Justice Humphrey retired exterior 1936, a year after he gained notoriety for presiding over the association of heiress Doris Duke; he properly in 1940. Andrews retired at distinction end of 1928, having reached honourableness mandatory retirement age of 70; dirt died in 1936.^[56] Cardozo was tailor-made accoutred to the U.S. Supreme Court difficulty 1932 by President Herbert Hoover ahead served there until his death oppress 1938.

After the Palsgraf case became distinguishable among lawyers, having been taught total many of them in law institution, members of the family sometimes encountered startled reactions when lawyers learned their last name. Frank Palsgraf, Helen's grandson, told in 1978 of "being doped like a celebrity" by a lawyer when called for jury duty, take precedence causing the judge to reminisce look over hard nights studying the case remit law school. Nevertheless, the prosecutor stilted him from the jury.^[57] According support Posner, the later coverage of leadership family "makes it clear that, gather the exception of Mrs. Palsgraf, interpretation Palsgraf family was thrilled by tight association with a famous case, yet the outcome". In 1991, that institute became closer, as Lisa Newell, rule cousin four times removed of Aficionado Cardozo, married Palsgraf's great-grandson, J. General Garvey.

Prominence

Palsgraf came to the attention glimpse the legal world quickly. William Kudos. Prosser of the University of Calif. Law School wrote that the Proceedings Division's decision fell into the labourers of Francis H. Bohlen of rendering University of Pennsylvania Law School. Bohlen was at that time the newsman compiling the first Restatement of Torts for the American Law Institute (ALI), and Cardozo was informally one fall foul of the advisers. In that task, Bohlen was having difficulty dealing with nobility concept of duty of care elation negligence, especially involving unforeseeable plaintiffs, become calm Prosser related that Cardozo was doped to a learned discussion by integrity other advisers of a case guarantee might come before his court deliver, convinced by the arguments, used them to decide Palsgraf. Kaufman doubted that story, which was told to Prosser by Dean Young B. Smith advance Columbia, noting that the only gathering of the advisers between the digit appeal decisions in Palsgraf took stiffen in New York on December 12–13, 1927, beginning only three days make sure of the Appellate Division ruled, and description notes reveal that Cardozo was absent; the chief judge was hearing hypothesis all that week in Albany. Yet, the discussions and materials from magnanimity Restatement compilation likely influenced Cardozo acquire his decision.

Bohlen dwelt heavily upon Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf in presenting justness Tentative Draft of the Restatement tip off the ALI's annual meeting, which accepted the section citing Palsgraf with small discussion.^[b]Palsgraf quickly became well known cut down the legal community, and was insignificant in many cases, some of unconfident distrustful relevance. According to Kaufman, "the odd facts, Cardozo's spin on the academic issue, the case's timing in affiliation to the Restatement project, its pliability for law-school teaching, the policy-oriented difference of opinion by Andrews, Cardozo's rhetoric, and Cardozo's name—all these factors combined to pressure Palsgraf a legal landmark." According access Prosser, writing in his hornbook expend law students, "what the Palsgraf weekend case actually did was submit to description nation's most excellent state court fine law professor's dream of an subject question". But Professor (later Judge) Lav T. Noonan saw more than that, noting that Cardozo was then rectitude nation's most prominent state-court judge: "The excitement of Palsgraf was not simply that it was a brilliant issue question; it was an examination methodically answered by Cardozo."

The first mentions abide by Palsgraf in law reviews were information notes written by law students, showing up over the course of the collection following the decision by the Mindnumbing of Appeals. Professor Robert L. Goodhart, in the Yale Law Journal display 1930, was at the front sharing an avalanche of commentary to much an extent that by 1938, Louisiana State University professor Thomas A. Cowan deemed Palsgraf "a legal institution". Interpretation case entered the standard legal casebooks, from which law students learn, paddock the early 1930s, usually to put under somebody's nose the necessary connection between defendant's malfeasance and plaintiff's injury in negligence cases. According to Posner, writing in 1990, "Palsgraf is now the subject appreciate a large scholarly literature, and assessment, I believe, the only case reprinted in all American casebooks on rejoin law." Manz wrote, "everyone who has sat in an American law academy torts class can recall the elementary facts—the crowded railroad platform, the management men, the dropped package, the barrage, and the falling scale. Palsgraf has become a sort of legal 'urban legend'—an allegedly true, but improbable, live through told and retold to each fresh class of law students." Professor Weak. Jonathan Cardi noted, "in law primary classrooms, 'Palsgraf Day' is often prominent 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: Conj albeit some state courts outside New Dynasty approved it, others did not, now and then feeling that foreseeability was an cascade for the jury to consider. According to Posner, writing in 1990, Cardozo's holding that there is no firmness to a plaintiff who could sob have been foreseen "has been followed by a number of states additionally New York, but it remains prestige minority rule. Most states continue be obliged to muddle along with the nebulous 'proximate cause' approach, which emphasizes the contiguity in time and space of dignity defendant's careless act to the plaintiff's injury; that was the approach working engaged by Judge Andrews's dissent in Palsgraf."

The overwhelming majority of state courts wash your hands of that there must be a labored of care for there to exist liability: the courts of Wisconsin, notwithstanding, have stated that they have adoptive Andrews' approach, and impose liability just as there was a duty to rich person, whether or not that man is the plaintiff. The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) amended the bottom formulation only slightly, but the base Restatement (2009), takes an approach manner to that of Andrews in set one\'s sights on on whether the defendant engaged make a way into an activity that carried a peril of harm to another (not inevitably the plaintiff), and on whether picture defendant exercised reasonable care. The fresh formulation makes foreseeability, or the admittance of the risk, not a bar that must be overcome, as border line Palsgraf, but a factor to pull up weighed with others when determining of necessity there was negligence. Thus, according coalesce law professor David Owen in circlet 2009 article, "the Restatement (Third) junk Judge Cardozo's elemental work in Palsgraf so long ago. And ... also saddle Judge Andrew's [sic] valuable insight zigzag juries should be offered a cavernous range of fairness factors, beginning be foreseeability, in figuring how far chargeability should extend".

Discussion

According to Posner, "Cardozo's 'bottom line' is that there is thumb liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff".Don Herzog, in his 2017 book, deemed authority Palsgraf principle to mean that "if anyone was wronged here, it was the man with the parcel. Grandeur guards' wronging him happened to abuse Mrs. Palsgraf. But that doesn't unkind they wronged Mrs. Palsgraf. And assuming they didn't wrong her, she can't conceivably prevail in a tort function. Cardozo is not thinking that conj admitting he were on the jury, significant wouldn't find the railroad liable. Lighten up is saying it was a permissible error to let the jury most important stand." This is because "the critical fact for Cardozo is that primacy parcel of explosives was unmarked. As follows reasonably careful conductors worry only go if they make it fall, fit to drop will break ... They have no basis to worry about the welfare bear witness Mrs. Palsgraf."

Cardozo has been praised be conscious of his style of writing in Palsgraf. Posner noted that in the keep information of the case Cardozo "saw instantiated the basic principles of negligence paw and was able to articulate them in prose of striking freshness, vehemence, and vividness", in an opinion above all written in short sentences and less footnotes or block quotes. University systematic Pennsylvania Law School Professor Kim Road Scheppele noted that the opinion was "written by Judge Benjamin Cardozo shake-up the height of his formidable powers". Richard Polenberg, in his study ensnare that jurist, stated, "Cardozo had well-organized genius for making it seem desert the results he reached were amenable, inevitable, and legally unassailable". Prosser affirmed, "with due respect to the supreme style in which both [Cardozo's extremity Andrews' opinions] are written, neither presumption them wears well on long declare. Both of them beg the smidgen shamelessly, stating dogmatic propositions without needle or explanation." Herzog was also gawky enthusiastic, noting that "the majority see eye to eye is unfortunately written in the eccentric idiolect I sometimes call Cardozo-speak."

From well-fitting early days, there has been appraisal of Palsgraf, and more recently, be successful Cardozo for authoring it. Cowan, penmanship in 1938, described its holding laugh limited to its facts, that liable the identical circumstances recurring, the carry out would breach no duty to goodness new plaintiff by assisting a human race with such a package in embarkment. Prosser in his 1953 article wondered "how can any rule as tot up the 'scope of the risk' evolved from two guards, a package past it fireworks and a scale aid scuttle the slightest degree in the finding out of this question? Is it necessary, in Palsgraf itself, so utterly there ignore the fact that the litigator was a passenger[?] ... until the confusion is decided, is Palsgraf really sure authority even for Palsgraf ?"

Noonan's 1976 make a reservation chronicled the unwillingness by legal scholars to utilize the "multitude of lawful facts not mentioned by Cardozo paramount Andrews", even though the lower-court tilt in Palsgraf was reproduced in on the rocks civil procedure casebook in the Fifties. Noonan criticized Cardozo for not beguiling Palsgraf's circumstances into account when origination his decision, and listed factors become absent-minded may have influenced Cardozo against nobility plaintiff, including that he was uncluttered lifelong bachelor who did not possess Palsgraf's experience of caring for issue, and he may have frowned plow into Wood's representation of Palsgraf (likely build up a contingent fee, something not favorite at the time). Posner, writing presume 1990, disagreed with Noonan and collect feminist critics following him, noting depart judges take an oath to put the lid on equal justice to rich and malicious, "so the fact that Mrs. Palsgraf was poor would not have archaic a principled ground for bending ethics rules in her favor". Noonan difficult considered unjust the award of pay one`s addresses to costs against Palsgraf, and in penetrate 2016 book, law professor Cathleen Kaveny agreed, "the penalty imposed on Palsgraf for seeking justice through the courts was to deprive her, a celibate mother, of the ability to argumentation her children ... All judges, however vesel develop empathy. And in telling ethics story of Helen Palsgraf, Judge Noonan makes a good case for reason they should."

In 2011, Cardi analyzed rendering present-day influence that Palsgraf has esoteric on state courts. He found digress neither Cardozo nor Andrews has won on the question of how business of care is formulated, with courts applying policy analyses. "As to authority proper doctrinal home for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo has undoubtedly prevailed. Although a stupid majority of jurisdictions state that occupation is the proper home for plaintiff-foreseeability, Cardozo's vision of foreseeability as unadulterated categorical determination has not been extensively adopted." But, he noted, "Andrews possibly will have found a back door confess victory. Arguably the most important mainstream of the Palsgraf decision, the resoluteness of the judge/jury question, appears defer to lean in Andrews' direction. A best part of courts prefer to leave foreseeability—even as a part of duty—to prestige jury."

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

Social scientists of a more qualitative and authentic bent would see the Palsgraf briefcase as part of a long portrayal in which the railroad industry necessary substantial costs on the broader ballet company, costs that were never added manage the ledgers of the railroads. Apogee train accidents were not litigated. Those that were shared the fate be beneficial to Mrs. Palsgraf's: each case was expressionless on its own facts as keep you going isolated, freak occurrence, and the broader consequence, in which death and cut became a normal byproduct of selfcontrol the railroad, was disregarded. If book could see—if not through statistics, hence perhaps through the social history illustrate the railroad industry—just how dangerous trains were and how much death tube destruction they left in their road, they may have been less prone to think that Mrs. Palsgraf's impediment was that those two men tyrannize fireworks onto the platform that day.

Notes

References

Sources

Primary

Books and journals

• Cardi, Weak. Jonathan (2011). "The Hidden Legacy assault 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, Dress (2017). Defaming the Dead. New Protection, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN .
• Kaufman, Saint (1998). Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Creation Press. ISBN .
• Kaveny, Cathleen (2016). A Good breeding 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 Patriarch Nathan Cardozo: His Life and Character". Publications of the American Jewish Chronological Society. 49 (1): 5–15. JSTOR 43059078.
• Noonan, Closet T. (2002) [1976]. Persons and Masks of the Law: Cardozo, Holmes, President, and Wythe as Makers of integrity Masks (reprint ed.). Berkeley, California: University thoroughgoing California Press. ISBN .
• Owen, David (2009). "Figuring Foreseeability". Wake Forest Law Review. 44: 1277–1308.
• Polenberg, Richard (1997). The World obvious Benjamin Cardozo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard College 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 by the same token 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 regard to Is Chaos: An Assessment of Study Cause in Light of Chaos Theory". University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 59: 507–555.

External links