Posted on by Judy

In the case Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad, 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 1928 N.Y.Lexis 1269 (N.Y.), Justice Cardoza denied recovery for the plaintiff. Justice Cardoza found that the railroad was not the proximate cause of Helen Palsgraf’s injuries. The concept of proximate cause is one that is less than precise. In today’s world of business can we still be sure that the reasoning used by Cardoza still applies? Has a new standard developed?

The court found the railroad company not to be negligent due to the fact that Palsgraf’s injury was not foreseeable. The package which caused the explosion was not marked to indicate its contents; therefore the guards had no reason to treat the package with caution. The event of the package exploding was not foreseeable and therefore, the injuries of Palsgraf were not foreseeable, relieving the guards of any proximate cause to the injuries of the plaintiff.
In today’s business world, I believe that proximate cause still applies and the courts must examine issues on a case-by-case basis. Was there a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect? Was the one substantial factor in producing the other? A court has to determine as a matter of law that an individual’s conduct is a probable consequences of the negligent act. I do agree that proximate cause is not an easy task and that two legal experts can look at the same set of facts and come to opposite conclusions about the existence of proximate clause.
Unintentional Torts (Negligence)
Duty of Care – The outcomes of some negligence cases depend on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
Breach of the Duty of Care – A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty.
Injury to the Plaintiff – The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Actual Cause – A defendants negligent act was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
Proximate Cause – A defendant’s negligent act was the proximate of the plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant is liable only for the foreseeable consequences of his or her negligent act.
 
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Related posts:

  1. 26. The complaint and answer documents are two examples of A. pleadings. B. hearsay. C. depositions and interrogatories. D. discovery. 27. Bonnie steals some very expensive cooking equipment from a restaurant supply store. Bonnie has committed the intentional tort of A. slander of title. B. conversion. C. petty theft. D. grand theft. 28. The elements of the tort of negligence include A. defendant’s breach of defendant’s duty B. plaintiff’s injury or damages C. a causal connection between defendant’s breach of duty and plaintiff’s injury or damages D. defendant’s breach of defendant’s duty, plaintiff’s injury or damages, and a causal connection between defendant’s breach of defendant’s duty and plaintiff’s injury or damages 29. Nancy owns a pet store in Seattle, and one of her dogs escapes and runs out onto the sidewalk in front of her store. If a passerby is bitten by Nancy’s dog, despite the passerby’s attempts to avoid and then run away from the dog, under the theory of strict liability, as applied in Washington, Nancy must pay for the injury A. only if Nancy intended to injure the passerby. B. only if Nancy knew that the dog had dangerous tendencies, and did not keep the dog restrained. C. regardless of whether Nancy was at fault in failing to restrain the dog. D. even if the passerby provoked the dog.
  2. Explain how in the concept of quasi-contract that the requirement for consideration can be seen as being met.
  3. What don’t you know about the McDonald’s coffee case? There has been quite a bit of publicity about the infamous “McDonald’s coffee” case. However, the public has never been given all of the facts. The media conveys only the “sensational” facts so they can sell newspapers or promote their television news coverage. One easy, entertaining way to complete this assignment is to watch the HBO documentary “Hot Coffee”. This documentary can be rented from Amazon Instant Video and watched on your computer (www.amazon.com) for $3.99. The video shows the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, and does an excellent job of explaining the facts and legal theories at issue in this infamous case. See http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Coffee-Joan-Claybrook/dp/B008CUL504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404935735&sr=8-1&keywords=hot+coffee. Watching the documentary is voluntary and not a requirement of this assignment. Your assignment is to find out the truth! There are many articles out there about the case. Research the case and summarize it in a one page essay (12 point font, one inch margins). Discuss the real facts and explain how knowing all of the facts changes your opinion about the merits of the case. In addition, explain whether it matters that a manufacturer of a product knows the product is causing harm. If so, why? The excat details about the case wasn’t given. Needed to be found on the internet.
  4. psychology;Some criminal justice students have questioned the need to learn about criminological theory because it is not related to the real world, or at least the field of criminal justice.