Summarize Case

After

CASE SUMMARY: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) — New York Court of Appeals ISSUE Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to an unforeseeable plaintiff who is injured as an indirect result of the defendant's negligence toward another person. RULE Negligence requires a duty owed to the specific plaintiff. Liability is limited to those within the foreseeable zone of danger. A wrong to one person does not automatically constitute a wrong to every person harmed by the chain of events. APPLICATION The railroad's guards acted negligently toward the man with the package. However, Mrs. Palsgraf was standing far away, and the harm to her (scales falling due to an explosion) was not a foreseeable consequence of pushing a passenger. The connection between the negligent act and her injury was too remote. CONCLUSION Holding: For the defendant. No duty of care was owed to the plaintiff because the injury was not foreseeable. This case established the "foreseeable plaintiff" test for duty in negligence law. SIGNIFICANCE Landmark case defining the scope of duty in tort law. Cardozo's majority opinion established that negligence must be measured relative to the risk of harm to the plaintiff, not to the world at large.