Negligence Damages

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Palsgraf v. Long Island RailroadFACTS:

The plaintiff was standing on the defendant’s railroad. When a train stopped two menran to catch the train, while one made it the other barely did. He appeared to be unsteady, whenone guard on the train reached out to help and another on the platform attempted to push him in.It was at this time that the package the man was carrying dislodges, fell on the rails andexploded. The shock of the explosion threw the some scales at the other end of the platformmany feet away but nevertheless the scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries. The package isof small size, fifteen inches long, and was covered with newspaper. There was nothing in itsappearance to give notice of contents but in fact the package had contained fireworks and hadexploded when it struck the rails.The trial and appellate court affirmed judgment for the plaintiff.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant owed duty to the plaintiff when the package was droppedinadvertently.

RULE: (

Concurring) if no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocentand harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the qualityof tort because it happened to be wrong. The risk reasonably to be perceived define the duty to be obeyed, and risks imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. But, had the defendant been aware of the particular method in which the accidentwould have occurred, if the possibility of an accident was clear to the ordinarily prudent eye,then there exists a duty imposed upon that defendant.Dissenting: Due care is a duty imposed on each one of us to protect society from unnecessarydanger, not to protect A, B, or C alone. Negligence involves a relationship between man and hisfellows, but not merely a relationship between man and those whom he might reasonably experthis act would injure; rather, a relationship between him and those whom he does in fact injure. If his act has a tendency to harm someone, it harms him mile away as surely as it does those on thescene. When injuries resulted from our unlawful act, we are liable for the consequences. It doesmatter that that they are unusual, unexpected, unforeseen, and unforeseeable. But the damageshas to be connected with the negligence that the latter may have said to be the cause in fact of theformer.

APPLICATION: (

Concurring

)

here, the defendant was attempting to help a man who duringthat act dropped a package causing the firecracker within to explode and injures the plaintiff standing at the end of the platform. At no time during this contact is there any reasons for thedefendant to exercise any extra care in handling the package. And, without any perception thatone's actions could harm someone, there could be no duty towards that person, and therefore nonegligence for which to impose liability. And even if the guard knew there were firecrackers inthe package, there is only a possibility that it would affect her.Dissenting: Here, the defendant was negligent when he dropped the package, causing it toexplode and injured the plaintiff. The judge saw the case as a matter of cause in fact, because the plaintiff’s injury could be immediately traced to the wrong committed by the guard, and the factof the wrong and the fact of the injury should be enough to find negligence. We owe a duty toourselves and others to refrain from engaging in acts to would likely injure ourselves and other.But if we do choose to act negligently, then not only should will be held liable to those withwhom we injured but also to those that were or not within the vicinity of the accident becauseour actions put them also in danger.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, if there is no tort to redress, there is no occasion to consider whatdamage might be recovered if there were a finding of a tort. Judgment should be reversed andcomplaint dismissed.Dissenting: Therefore, the act upon which the defendant’s liability rests is knocking theapparently harmless package on the platform. The act is negligent. For its proximateconsequences the defendant is liable even if its content were broken, to owner; if it fell upon andcrushed a passenger’s foot, then to him; if it exploded and injured one in the immediate vicinity,to him. Decision should be affirmed with costs.

Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises Inc,FACTS:

The plaintiff’s mother was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant causingher to be fitted with a lumbo-peritoneal shunt as a result of the accident. Three years later,

plaintiff’s mother was pregnant and during that pregnancy, the fetus compresses the lumbo- peritoneal shunt and to prevent injury to the mother, the plaintiff was delivered 51 days premature by Cesarean section.The defendant served its demurrer challenging the plaintiff complaint on the absence of any legal duty of care. The trail court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on theground that recognition of such a cause of action would be an unwarranted extension of a duty of care. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether a negligent motorist owed a legal duty of care to the subsequent conceivedchild of a woman who was injured in an automotive accident.

RULE:

Every case is governed by the rule of general application that persons are required to useordinary care for the protection of those whom harm can be reasonable foreseen. The court’s task then in determining duty is to evaluate whether the category of negligent conduct at issue issufficiently to result in the kind of harm experienced such that liability may be appropriatelyimposed upon the negligent party.

APPLICATION:

Here, the defendant conduct was the cause in fact of the injuries, but there hasto be a foreseeable likeliness that the harm suffered was from the injury sustained during theaccident. The foreseeability was lacking in this case, because there is no way for the defendant’conduct to have translated to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Not only is the plaintiff notconceived but the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were three years later. As the court puts it, “amotorist cannot reasonable foresee that his negligent conduct might injure a child subsequentlyconceived by a woman several years after a car accident.

CONCLUSION:

The concept of legal duty necessarily includes and expresses considerations of social policy and the trial courts’ determinations with respect to those considerations have meritand rationality, and so we affirmed.

Dykema v. Gus Macker Enterprises, IncFACTS:

The plaintiff was injured at a basketball tournament organized by the defendant. Thetournament was held outdoors, spectators were charged no admission fee, free to move about towatch the games. The plaintiff attended the game as a nonspectator and during the tournament a

of 00

Leave a Comment