Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company
Court of Appeals of New York (1928)
Plaintiff Briefing
Erika Johnson, Christopher Westman, Stuart Denton
On August 24, 1924, Helen Palsgraf, a 43-year old married woman of three, had a life altering
experience at the hands of the defendant, The Long Island Railroad Company. While waiting on the East
New York Station platform, owned and operated by the Long Island Railroad Company, our client was
injured as a result of an explosion. The concussion from the explosion knocked down scales on the side of
the platform where she was standing causing physical and psychological injuries. Mrs. Palsgraf is filing a
tort suit against the Long Island Railroad Company for negligence and lack of due care for its passengers
and seeks compensation of $50,000 for all damages.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Palsgraf, is filing a tort suit because she has been injured by the defendant as a
result of the defendant’s negligence, and the defendant must be held responsible. To elaborate further, the
plaintiff, with two of her daughters, were waiting at the station to board a train to Rockaway Beach. While
waiting, there was a train headed for a separate destination pulling away from the platform and two men
were running to catch it. The second man was attempting to board while the train was in motion, and the
train guard and platform attendant both attempted to help him on board. In the process, the package the
passenger was carrying was knocked from his grasp and fell between the platform and the train onto the
track and exploded because it was full of fireworks. The explosion caused a concussion which caused the
scales to fall and injure the plaintiff some ways down on the platform. It is imperative that the defendant
operate its trains and facilities in a manner that does not cause preventable damages and injuries to its
occupants and innocent bystanders. The defendant is responsible and liable under the negligence rule, for
lack of due care, vulnerability of the victim, and absolute negligence.
The law “aims to make sure that the lowest cost avoider is encouraged to take care”.i Due care is
defined as the care that a reasonable individual would exercise under the circumstances. Similarly in
property cases, liability is placed on the party that is the lowest cost avoider of damages. Economic analysis
suggests that liability be placed on the party that has greater access to information to prevent accidents from
happening when negligence cannot be associated with both parties. A reasonable assumption is that the
railroad company should be more aware of the possible mishaps on platforms and trains and it is necessary
for them to take the proper precautions for prevention. In Davies v. Mann (1842) the court decision states:
“for as the defendant might, by proper care, have avoided injuring the animal, and did not, he is liable for the
consequences of his negligence.” As precedent, this court decision illustrates that if an accident could have
been avoided if the injurer would have exercised due care, they are therefore liable for all consequences of
their negligence.
There is no plaintiff negligence in our case supporting victim vulnerability making the defendants
solely responsible for their negligence. There was no other course of action the plaintiff could have taken to
prevent the accident from happening and, furthermore, prevent the injuries inflicted upon her as a result of
the accident. Economic analysis suggests that “a tort victim is permitted to recover his damages in full even
though the extent of his injury was unforeseeable by the defendant because of the victim’s unusual
vulnerability.”ii One of the main arguments by the defense will be that the accident was unforeseeable and
that an unforeseeable harm does not constitute a wrong. If the accident is not wrong it cannot, by definition,
be a tort liability case. This analysis is incorrect because injuries to the plaintiff do constitute a wrong,
especially when the injuries occurred because of defendant negligence. In addition, the defendant is liable
because the victim was unusually vulnerable and had no way to avoid the accident’s repercussions.
The defense’s subsequent argument, that there is no proximate cause and effect, is also incorrect
because negligence should be determined in absolute terms, not relative. Absolute negligence means that
the injurer is responsible for all consequences of his negligence regardless of proximity. During the direct
examination of the last witness, it was stated by the expert neurologist that the accident was a “competent
producing cause for the symptoms she shows.”iii If it can be proven that cause “A” results in effect “B” due
to negligence, then the injurer is responsible and liable regardless of proximity. A legal rule has been
adopted and still widely used that says “a tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds him; the tort-feasor is still
liable for the actual due to his tort.”iv If your wrongdoing causes damage, you are responsible regardless of
intent or proximity.
The negligence rule states that a potential injurer is negligent only if the cost of precaution is less
than the probability of a loss multiplied by the monetary value of a loss.v Economic analysis suggests that
the defendant is negligent and liable for an accident if, and only if, they did not take all cost-justified
precautions to prevent it. Furthermore, not all cost-justified precautions are adequate measure to ensure
against non-negligent accidents. For negligent claims, “you take all precautions that are both observable and
cost justified.”vi In this case, the defendants should have been providing safeguards as long as the extra
benefit of doing so exceeds the extra cost of implementation. Recommendations for appropriate safeguards
will be discussed more in depth later, but the plaintiff already claims that certain regulations and procedures
were not followed with respect to the train attendant and platform guards’ behavior.vii If two employees of
the defendant aren’t following guidelines already outlined in order to prevent harm to passengers, it is
negligent without even attempting to impose new safeguards that would have been cost effective.
In addition, the doctrine of respondeat superior makes an employer responsible for torts committed
by its employees under the scope of their employment. The decision to file against the Long Island Railroad
Co. is economically efficient, over doing so against the two responsible individuals, because it is assumed
that employees lack the resources to pay a judgment if they seriously injure someone. In making the
employer liable for torts committed by employees, it “will give the employer an incentive to use such
inducements [to make them less careless].”viii This incentive aligns with the negligence rule because there
were cost effective precautions that could have been taken to ensure against accidents of this nature.
The economic implications and incentives for the railroad company would be to implement
safeguards that are cost effective. Two apparent and relatively inexpensive safeguards the defendant could
have imposed were to reduce the number of people on the platform and restrict employees from assisting
passengers onto trains that are in motion. Four witnesses including the plaintiff, her two daughters Elizabeth
and Lillian, and Grace Gerhardt admitted that the platform was crowded.ix Not only was the platform
crowded but the Palsgrafs and Gerhardts were not even intending to board the train that was at the platform
at time. This suggests crowd control and regulation that limits passengers from waiting on the platform, as
opposed to the designated waiting area, should be implemented. Those same four witnesses testified that
the two employees helped the running passenger onto the train while in motion, which alone is a safety
hazard. Had these two employees not helped this passenger onto the train, the accident could have been
avoided. Yet another cost effective precaution the defendant could have taken, or maybe now will take as a
result of this incident, is to close the gap between the train and the platform. The plaintiff and Herbert
Gerhandt testified that the gap was at least fifteen to eighteen inches wide because it was big enough for the
package to fall through. The defendant should take the appropriate precaution to not only restrict packages
from falling through onto the tracks, but also anything, such as children, that can fit. These suggestions
imply that the defendant did not take all observable and cost-justified precautions to prevent such accidents
from occurring. Without doing so, the defendant is negligent and liable.
After proving negligence and liability, our client is suing for $50,000 for compensatory damages.
The defense may attempt to invalidate the claim for such a large compensatory amount because the plaintiff
doesn’t generate that much of her own income nor do her expenses appear to add up anywhere close to that
amount. However, “since we expect tort-feasors to be found liable with a probability less than one, tortfeasors will on average pay out as damages less than the full damage do, giving them an inefficiently low
incentive to avoid doing it.”x In trying to give the defendant the right incentive, it is appropriate that once a
suit is in successful litigation, the damages awarded coincide with the probability of winning.
Our position is that our client should be awarded punitive damages in conjunction with actual
damages. Economic analysis suggests that punitive damages “are a way of playing safe if damage is hard to
measure but efficient offenses are unlikely.”xi The plaintiff and her doctor, Dr. Karl Parshall, testified that as
a result of this accident, the plaintiff had painful injuries, soreness, disability, pain, anguish, shock to her
nervous system, and medical expenses for a temporary time period not mention the constant stammering
and stuttering of speech that seems permanent. This permanent damage is something that is not easily
quantifiable. In addition, after the accident the plaintiff couldn’t work and as a result she testified that now
all three of her children are forced to work to help support the family. This effect on family life is also not
easily quantifiable. Lastly, the everlasting psychological effects of the accidents on the plaintiff are not
easily quantifiable. All damages not easily quantifiable do in fact exist and because of their very nature, it is
important that the economic efficiency of their inclusion in punitive damages are exercised.
Judgment in this case should be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is liable for the
damages to the plaintiff under the negligence rule. The employees of the defendant, under
reasonable care, could have prevented the accident by not allowing the passenger on the moving
train, and not knocking the package from the grasp of its possessor. This negligence was the
proximate cause for the injuries and damages sustained to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant
should be required to compensate for these damages (due to the negligence of its employees)
under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This ruling of strict liability and punitive damages
will provide incentive for the defendant to provide an efficient level of safeguards against future
similar accidents.
i
Posner. Economic Analysis of Law p. 173
Posner. Economic Analysis of Law p. 188
iii
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. transcript p. 1093
iv
Friedman. The Law’s Order p. 219
v
Posner. Economic Analysis of Law p. 168
vi
Friedman. The Law’s Order p. 199
vii
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. transcript p. 1064
viii
Posner. Economic Analysis of Law p. 188
ix
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. transcript p. 1070, 1084, 1086, 1089
x
Friedman. The Law’s Order p. 206
xi
Friedman. The Law’s Order p. 208
ii