Elisa Samonte
13 January 2016
Professor W. Avery
FRL 201.04
IRAC #1
Case: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Background Information: Helen Palsgraf was waiting for the train at the station when a
man carrying a package came running down to catch the train that was passing by. The
man tried to board the train and was unsteady and about to fall causing the railroad guard
to help him up. As this was happening, the package the man was carrying fell on the tracks
causing an explosion. This resulted in Palsgraf’s injuries that she is suing for.
Issue: Since there was no willingness to cause an explosion with the fireworks, is the
defendant still liable for Palsgraf’s injuries? The legal issue is whether the defendant’s
actions are considered negligence even though the injury was not intentional and wouldn’t
have been foreseen.
Rule:
•The defendant owes a duty of care only to those who are in reasonably foreseeable
zone of danger.
•A duty that is owed must be determined from the risk that can reasonably be
foreseen under the circumstances.
•Zone of Danger Doctrine stating that if a reasonable person would not have
foreseen injury to anyone through his conduct, there is no duty owed to anyone
who was unexpectedly hurt by defendant’s actions.
Application: For there to be an accusation of negligence there must be a violation of duty
and that if the defendant had been careful, that the injury would have been avoided. Since