Terms in this set (153)

How is the duty of due care that is owed determined?
To whom does a party owe the duty of due care?

Mrs. Palsgraf (P) was standing on a Long Island Railroad (D) train platform when two men ran to catch a train. The second man was carrying a small package containing fireworks. He was helped aboard the train by one guard on the platform and another on the train. The man dropped the package which exploded when it hit the tracks. The shock of the explosion caused scales at the other end of the platform many feet away to fall, striking and injuring Palsgraf. Palsgraf brought a personal injury lawsuit against Long Island Railroad and the railroad appealed the court's judgment in favor of Palsgraf. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and Long Island Railroad appealed.

the majority and dissenting opinions discuss two completely distinct issues. They reach different conclusions through different analyses.

Cardozo (majority)
• This is a breach case.
• Duty → Palsgraf was a costumer of the railroad and a duty was therefore owed to her.
• Breach → This is the issue. Was the injury sustained by Palsgraf among the risks created by the breach?
• Cardozo says NO.
• Causation → Cardozo says breach is a personal matter, thus the risk that is created must be a risk to the specific π. It is unnecessary to go beyond breach. Without breach, there is no wrong.
• Injury → palsgraf was injured.
Andrews (dissent)
• This is a causation case
• Andrews finds that there was a duty, that there was a breach of that duty, and that there was injury.
• The question becomes whether or not the breach can be connected to the injury.
• Andrews applies a directness test. He holds that because the act of the train employee resulted in the package falling, the train employee is liable for any and all results, directly or indirectly related to that act.