Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Death of man struck by train leads to 'bizarre' civil case (Injury by flying body parts!)
The Chicago Tribune ^ | December 29, 2011 | Steve Schmadeke

Posted on 12/29/2011 11:28:30 AM PST by CedarDave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: Wallop the Cat

“So now standing by the wayside minding your own business is “doing something stupid?””

No, but running in front of a speeding train is stupid.


21 posted on 12/29/2011 12:07:11 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave; All
No.

One of the most famous tort/negligence/proximate cause cases of all time - that any lawyer or law student knows by name - is Palsgraf. I had to cheat and look up the cite: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. , 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928.

Without going into specifics (and if I remember correctly), a man carrying a package was running to catch a train, and the worker from the train reached out to give him a hand. The man dropped the package. It contained fireworks. Sparks from the train wheels ignited a firework. It struck a scale on the platform, knocking it over, and a bystander was seriously injured or killed by the falling scale.

Was the railroad liable?

Yeah. That Palsgraf Benjamin Cardozo wrote the opinion. Yeah. *That* Benjamin Cardozo. Should your employee have known that trying to help the man may cause him to drop the package that might contain fireworks that may ignite, which might knock over a scale, which could injure someone?

And now we have this?

The law comes full circle.

And you can even buy a Palsgraf t-shirt for your favorite attorney or law student, in several choices of color, with this design:


22 posted on 12/29/2011 12:10:14 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
Looks like the Illinois Court adopted the reasoning of the dissent in the Palsgraf case.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm

23 posted on 12/29/2011 12:11:18 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RoarkMan
I understand she is suing for an arm and a leg.

Especially if the dead guy's arm and leg ended up in her purse.
24 posted on 12/29/2011 12:12:36 PM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Wait. It wasn't 'should have known,' but 'was helping the man aboard the proximate cause of Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries?" if I remember correctly.

It's been a while, but this is one of the key cases you'll have in law school regarding negligence.

I suspect it didn't matter to Mrs. Palsgraf whether it was fireworks or body parts.

25 posted on 12/29/2011 12:12:55 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Was the railroad liable?

Yes or no? Your post is not clear.

26 posted on 12/29/2011 12:13:39 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

she should sue Willie Green.


27 posted on 12/29/2011 12:19:41 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RoarkMan

“Hey Now!....tip your waitresses people...I’ll be here all week.”

Try the veal!


28 posted on 12/29/2011 12:26:43 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I wonder of there’s insurance for that liability.


29 posted on 12/29/2011 12:31:15 PM PST by meatloaf (I've had it with recycling politicians in any way shape or form. Vote 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; thecodont
Cardozo, writing the majority opinion holding the railroad was not liable, relied on the foreseeability doctrine. Andrews, writing for the dissent, argued that the railroad should be liable on the basis that the employee's action, pushing the passenger onto the railroad car, was the proximate cause of Palsgraf's injury.

Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!
30 posted on 12/29/2011 12:50:49 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Sometimes with a jury you just have to get your foot in the door.

A guy cant just go throwing his weight around....

31 posted on 12/29/2011 12:56:03 PM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa; thecodont
Yep. You have to realize this was a novel idea at the time, and the opinion is so well written, which is why the case is so famous that it's still taught.

Basically, Cardozo said: "Hey, at some point, people (and companies) are only responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, and not for every possible thing that could happen in a parade of horribles."

It was a conservative view compared to the dissent by Andrews - and, of course, when you talk about commerce, there's the doctrine of strict products liability. And with any legal concept, there are exceptions. And exceptions to the exceptions. And exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. And . . .

Incidentally, Cardozo wrote for the New York Court of Appeals. That's the highest state court in New York, not the Supreme Court, which often confuses people. In New York, the Supreme Court is a trial court.

32 posted on 12/29/2011 1:09:09 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wallop the Cat; ConorMacNessa

When I started law school, I thought Palsgraff was the name of a local brewery.


33 posted on 12/29/2011 1:09:42 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Eh. You take your time to craft a post and all of these other smarties are faster with the button. Sorry to over-Palsgraf everybody. There weren’t any Palsgrafian comments when I started writing. But was it foreseeable that somebody would beat me to the punch? Perhaps we should apply the reasoning in Palsgraf . . .


34 posted on 12/29/2011 1:12:09 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Basically, Cardozo said: "Hey, at some point, people (and companies) are only responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, and not for every possible thing that could happen in a parade of horribles."

That would explain the lack of courtroom scenes in the Final Destination movie series.

35 posted on 12/29/2011 1:31:30 PM PST by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Moltke; Scoutmaster; Gamecock; F15Eagle

I kind of like this modern day (more or less) re-enactment of Palsgraf (Cosmo Kramer on the tennis courts).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxoQm9kcELQ


36 posted on 12/29/2011 1:44:03 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido; All
I kind of like this modern day (more or less) re-enactment of Palsgraf (Cosmo Kramer on the tennis courts).

Respectfully, if, when Kramer had fallen, he had spilled a bag of popcorn; a pigeon had swooped onto the court; a small, leashed dog in the stands had lunged for the pigeon; the woman holding the leash was abruptly jostled, causing her to spill an iced drink in the lap of the man sitting next to her; the man had an undiagnosed medical condition which caused him to be hypersensitive to cold in the 'groinal' region; his spasmodic temperature-induce twitching caused his steel-toed size 12 Oxfords to strike the propellor-topped beanie on the head of the boy in front of him, spinning it; and the beanie helicopter-ed into the air, hitting the microphone of the broadcaster in the open-fronted third-level booth, knocking the mic into his mouth and choking him; and as his broadcasting partner performed the Heimlich maneuver, he had a Post-Traumatic Stress related flashback to a first-lieutenant's too-large-spoonful of dried-chipped-beef-on-toast in a dining fly in a small compound in Istanbul, causing the partner permanent to lose his ability to speak and his livelihood and to sue the manufacturer of the tennis ball machine? ~

~ now that's Palsgraf.

37 posted on 12/29/2011 2:11:53 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
~ now that's Palsgraf.

Sort of the legal version of a Rube Goldberg contraption!

38 posted on 12/29/2011 2:15:36 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

lulz


39 posted on 12/29/2011 2:28:16 PM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RoarkMan

That is so sick............but funny...


40 posted on 12/29/2011 3:04:18 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson