[ConorMacNessa]

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!

[Scoutmaster]

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.