Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)
Brief on behalf of the Plaintiff
Iguchi, Kortlandt, Lim, Presho-Dunne
Firstly the Plaintiff will show sufficient negligence on the part of the platform
guard, and that it was this negligence that led to the harm of Mrs. Palsgraf. This
negligence was rooted in a wrong, if not to Mrs. Palsgraf then to the package-bearing
Italian man, which was the proximate cause to Mrs. Palsgraf’s injury. Whether or
not such an outcome could be reasonably anticipated does not matter; it is
reasonable for the platform guard to assume that some damage can come from
causing the package to fall, whether the damage be close or at a short distance. Even
if the courts decide there was no negligence on the part of the platform guard, the
Long Island Railroad Co. was negligent on three separate counts.
Platform Guard Negligence
As per Mrs. Grace Gerhardt’s testimony, an Italian man carrying a package
rushed to catch a train as it was pulling out of the station. The package was oval in
shape, had about a 15-inch diameter and was wrapped in newspaper. She also
testifies that the Italian man’s short stature made it so his arm did not go all the way
around the package. As the guard on the train was holding the door open, the
platform guard was pushing the Italian man onto the train. The platform guard
should have been well aware of the Italian man’s tenuous grip on the package, and
should have exercised reasonable care when helping him onto the train. Instead, he
negligently pushed the man’s arm that was holding the package, causing it to fall.
The guard did not have to push the man’s arm to help onto the train: he could have
pushed his back or buttocks, which would have been equally (if not more so)
effective in giving the man a boost. Instead he elected to push the arm holding the
package, which directly led to the package falling, which directly led to the injury of
Mrs. Palsgraf.
The defendant may argue that the Long Island Railroad Co. should not be
held liable because the consequence of the platform guard’s actions on Mrs. Palsgraf
could not have been reasonably anticipated. This fact is irrelevant. The guard must
have anticipated that some harm would come the falling package. The package
could have contained wedding china, or could have fallen and broken another
passenger’s toe. In these cases would the victim not be able to collect damages
against the negligent guard? Because the guard should have anticipated some harm,
he should be held liable for all damages arising from his wrong. Proximity to the
fallen package is irrelevant to the question of negligence and reasonable care.
Distance has become increasingly irrelevant as humans have progressed. We
are able to cause harm to others at an increasing distance, beginning with the bow
and arrow and continuing with the artillery and poison gas implemented in the war
just a decade ago. In another ten or twenty years we may even create a bomb that is
capable of destroying whole cities! The point here is that it is not unreasonable to
anticipate that a package could contain something that causes harm to someone
some short distance away because technology has progressed so that such items are
not uncommon.
The defense may also argue that the platform guard’s negligence is too far
removed from Mrs. Palsgraf’s injury. I disagree: It is certainly close enough in the
chain of events to be considered the proximate cause. The courts today have the
opportunity to decide where to draw the line on proximate cause in similar tort
cases: how long a chain of events must be before a victim can no longer collect
damages? It should certainly be past the first step: the package fell due to the
platform guard’s negligence and exploded, which in turn caused the scale to fall on
Mrs. Palsgraf. Two steps are certainly not unreasonable for the court to allow
damages to be awarded. This is a case of cause and effect: had the guard not
dropped the package, my client would not have been injured. The platform guard’s
negligence should be considered proximate cause because it is a wrong that, had it
not occurred, would not have led to the injury of Mrs. Palsgraf.
Long Island Railroad Co. Negligence
There are three other actions that the Long Island Railroad Co. could have
taken to avert disaster. Firstly, as per Herbert Gerhardt’s testimony, there are
guards posted right outside the entrance to the platform in the ticket booth area.
These guards failed to notice a particularly suspicious package the Italian man was
holding. As per multiple testimonies, many people in the station had a bag of some
sort: valises, suitcases or satchels. A large package, 15 inches in diameter with an
oval shape wrapped in newspaper should have stood out from the more typical
personal items people were carrying. The package’s wrapping was solely to conceal
the contents of the package: newspaper is too thin and flimsy to be load bearing or
have any utility other than concealment. This should have stuck out as a red flag to
the guards had they been exercising reasonable care. Searching one suspicious
package would have been a low-cost way to avoid this disaster; instead they ignored
said package.
The Long Island Railroad Co. also regularly accepts and supports the practice
of allowing latecomers to board the train while it is moving out of the station. This
excludes the consideration of reasonable care for the sole purpose of earning more
profit from more passenger fares. Anyone with common sense can tell you that this
practice is unsafe and can easily lead to injury of the person attempting to board or
any by standard on the platform. The defense may argue that this is standard
industry practice, but the question is, should it be? Just because a practice is
widespread does not mean that it is safe enough to constitute ‘unforeseeable harm.’
As a matter of fact, disallowing people to board when the train is in motion would
probably only cost the company a few fares per train, hardly a significant amount.
Most of these ‘lost fairs’ would likely wait for the next train anyway.
Lastly, the Long Island Railroad Co failed to take adequate steps to control
and minimize the crowd in the train station that Sunday morning. All the
testimonies of people at the train station at the time of the incident state that the
platform was crowded. It was so crowded in fact, that Mrs. Palsgraf found room to
standand wait only in a corner by a weighing machine. Mrs. Palsgraf also had
nowhere to move when the explosion occurred because of the crowd so that she
could not avoid the weighing machine that fell and struck her. This practice of
overcrowding platforms is dangerous, and again is so the company can earn more
profit. They have many options to minimize the number of passengers on their
platform: fewer cars per train, more tracks and hence more platforms, a waiting
room for passengers waiting for their train if it is not the next to arrive, or more
spaced out departure times of trains.
Conclusion
The LIRR Co was negligent on three counts: failure to inquire about
suspicious packages, allowing passengers to board trains as the train is in motion,
and failure to control and minimize crowds. In addition, its platform guard was
negligent when assisting the Italian man aboard the train, causing his package to fall
and explode, which is the proximate cause of my client’s injuries. Mrs. Palsgraf was
clearly wronged, Dc. Graeme Hammond’s testimony to her condition post-injury
shows that. There is sufficient negligence on LIRR Co’s part to warrant awarding
damages. Damages should include: medical bills, emotional damages, and lost
wages due to her injury.