Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

New York Court of Appeals · 1928 · Torts

tortsproximate causenegligencedutyforeseeabilitydutyforeseeabilityzone of danger

Facts

The plaintiff was standing on the defendant railroad's platform after buying a ticket. As a train was moving, guards helped a man carrying a small newspaper-wrapped package board; the package fell onto the rails and exploded because it contained fireworks, though nothing in its appearance revealed that fact. The explosion knocked down scales at the far end of the platform, and the scales injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff was standing far away, and nothing in the situation suggested danger to persons so removed.

Issue

Whether the railroad was negligent toward this plaintiff when its guards assisted a passenger, causing his apparently harmless package to fall and explode, injuring a person standing far away. More specifically, did the guards owe a duty to the plaintiff when no reasonable person could foresee from the package's appearance a risk to her bodily security?

Rule

Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest of the plaintiff. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and that duty extends only to persons within the range or orbit of reasonable apprehension; proof of negligence in the abstract or of a wrong to someone else is insufficient.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a commuter station in Newark, a transit attendant grabbed Evan Cole’s elbow to steady him as he hurried onto a departing train. Evan dropped a plain brown lunch sack onto the tracks; unknown to anyone, it contained blasting caps that exploded and caused a light fixture fifty feet away to fall on Nina Park, who was waiting near a kiosk.

If Nina sues the transit company for negligence, which is the strongest argument under the majority rule?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, negligence is relational: the plaintiff must show a duty owed to her, and the risk reasonably to be perceived defines that duty. Because the lunch sack appeared harmless and gave no warning of danger to a person far away, Nina was outside the orbit of reasonable apprehension. Without a tort to Nina, her claim fails without reaching proximate cause. (Derived from Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928).)