# Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in New York) written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a Supreme Court justice. Palsgraf is a landmark in tort law that helped establish the concept of proximate cause, a limitation of negligence with respect to scope of liability. Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Andrews
* Wikipedia article
Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant
Court of Appeals of New York
248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 59 A.L.R. 1253
February 24, 1928, Argued -- May 29, 1928, Decided
A man carrying a package jumped aboard a car of a moving train and, seeming unsteady as if about to fall, a guard on the car reached forward to help him in and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind, during which the package was dislodged and falling upon the rails exploded, causing injuries to plaintiff, an intending passenger, who stood on the platform many feet away. There was nothing in the appearance of the package to give notice that it contained explosives. In an action by the intending passenger against the railroad company to recover for such injuries, the complaint should be dismissed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right, and the conduct of the defendant's guards, if a wrong in relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff standing many feet away.
William McNamara and Joseph F. Keany for appellant. Plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries were caused by negligence of the defendant and it was error for the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. ( Paul v. Cons. Fireworks Co., 212 N.Y. 117; Hall v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 214 N.Y. 49; Perry v. Rochester Lime Co., 219 N.Y. 60; Pyne v. Cazenozia Canning Co., 220 N.Y. 126; Adams v. Bullock, 227 N.Y. 208; McKinney v. N. Y. Cons. R. R. Co., 230 N.Y. 194; Palsey v. Waldorf Astoria, Inc., 220 App. Div. 613; Parrott v. Wells Fargo & Co., 15 Wall. 524; A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. v. Calhoun, 213 U.S. 1; Prudential Society, Inc., v. Ray, 207 App. Div. 496; 239 N.Y. 600.)
Matthew W. Wood for respondent. The judgment of affirmance was amply sustained by the law and the facts. ( Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N.Y. 425; Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; Lowery v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N.Y. 198; Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Trapp v. McClellan, 68 App. Div. 362; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N. Y. 83; McKenzie v. Waddell Coal Co., 89 App. Div. 415; Slater v. Barnes, 241 N.Y. 284; King v. Interborough R. T. Co., 233 N.Y. 330.)
Cardozo, Ch. J. Pound, Lehman and Kellogg, JJ., concur with Cardozo, Ch. J.; Andrews, J., dissents in opinion in which Crane and O'Brien, JJ., concur.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse