Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
proximate cause
duty
foreseeability
negligence
FACTS: Railroad employees helped a man board a moving train, causing him to drop a package. Unknown to them, the package contained fireworks, which exploded. The blast knocked down scales at the other end of the platform, injuring Mrs. Palsgraf.
ISSUE: Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff who was not within the foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant's negligent conduct?
RULE (Cardozo majority): Duty is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs—those within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. Negligence in the air is not actionable without a duty running to the particular plaintiff.
ANALYSIS: The railroad employees' negligence, if any, was toward the package-carrying passenger, not to Mrs. Palsgraf standing far away. She was outside the foreseeable risk of harm created by helping someone board a train.
CONCLUSION: Judgment for defendant. No duty was owed to Mrs. Palsgraf as she was an unforeseeable plaintiff.
DISSENT (Andrews): Everyone owes a duty to the world at large. Proximate cause, not duty, should limit liability.
ISSUE: Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff who was not within the foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant's negligent conduct?
RULE (Cardozo majority): Duty is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs—those within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. Negligence in the air is not actionable without a duty running to the particular plaintiff.
ANALYSIS: The railroad employees' negligence, if any, was toward the package-carrying passenger, not to Mrs. Palsgraf standing far away. She was outside the foreseeable risk of harm created by helping someone board a train.
CONCLUSION: Judgment for defendant. No duty was owed to Mrs. Palsgraf as she was an unforeseeable plaintiff.
DISSENT (Andrews): Everyone owes a duty to the world at large. Proximate cause, not duty, should limit liability.