Replies

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.

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.

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.

Oh wow, you just made my day! Here's why - one of my favorite old-time Christmas movies is Miracle on 34th Street, where Santa Claus is put on trial. And in the movie, the prosecutor mentions that the trial (actually a sanity hearing) is being held before the "New York Supreme Court," and it always bugged me to no end, because it was obviously a trial-level court. I figured Hollywood was just doing what it loves to do most - dump down the people. But still, back in 1947, people were a lot more on the ball, and I wondered how the got away with it (especially to audiences in NY).

Well, now I know - they told the truth.

Thank you!

In my torts class, I was one of the few adherents to the Cardozo opinion - I was surrounded by nascent bloodthirsty plaintiffs' attorneys. Thirty -five years later I still favor the Cardozo opinion. I felt that the net of liability was extending too wide then and I think it has gone way too far now. We have notions of "enterprise liability" which imposes liability on a company in products liability and other cases on the basis of market share rather than fault. The lefties love this one.

I am now semi-retired - have not practiced in about ten years. I know lawyers are held in low odor in this forum as well as among the general populace. When I started practicing law back in the late 70's, there was a high degree of professional courtesy and collegiality among lawyers. In recent years, this has all gone. The practice of law, particularly the litigation end of it, has become a savage and vicious business in which hardball tactics, incivility and high-handedness reign.

I couldn't take it any more. That is why I no longer practice. I have forbidden any of my children from becoming lawyers.

End of rant.

Etiam non princeps sed usque ad genua, Principis Pacis!