palsgraf造句

• Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming her injury resulted from negligent acts of the employee.
• The trial court and the intermediate appeals court found for Palsgraf by verdict from a jury, and Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment.
• Palsgraf v . LIRR ( 1928 ) is a major case in American Tort law which established the legal standard of " proximate cause " based on foreseeability.
• Because of the vague nature of Palsgraf's sole injury, some legal scholars have suggested that Cardozo reversed the jury's verdict to erase a fraudulent claim.
• Palsgraf could not sue the guard for pushing the other passenger because that act did not violate a duty to her, as is required for liability under a negligence theory.
• It is the strictest test of causation, made famous by Benjamin Cardozo in " Palsgraf v . Long Island Railroad Co . " case under New York state law.
• The shock reportedly knocked down platform ( although later accounts suggest that a panicking bystander may have upset the scale ), which injured Mrs . Helen Palsgraf ( the respondent, originally plaintiff ).
• In 1928, the station was the location of a firework accident that resulted in " Palsgraf v . Long Island Railroad Co . ", an oft-cited court case on the doctrine of proximate cause.
• These included dissents in " Palsgraf v . Long Island Railroad Co . " and " Meinhard v . Salmon ", both cases in which Andrews expressed a sharply different philosophy of the responsibilities people owe to one another.
• Palsgraf v . Long Island R . Co ., 248 N . Y . 339, 162 N . E . 99 ( 1928 ), and its use should obviate not only the complication but even the need for further temporal or spatial limitations.
• The case involved a passenger ( Palsgraf ) who was injured on the platform as the result of a chain of events ( another passenger dropping a package on the tracks which turned out to be fireworks that exploded and indirectly caused the injury to Mrs . Palsgraf ) which the court deemed unforeseeable on the part of the LIRR . It is a milestone decision in American law.
• The case involved a passenger ( Palsgraf ) who was injured on the platform as the result of a chain of events ( another passenger dropping a package on the tracks which turned out to be fireworks that exploded and indirectly caused the injury to Mrs . Palsgraf ) which the court deemed unforeseeable on the part of the LIRR . It is a milestone decision in American law.
• Jerome B . Grubart, Inc . v . Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co ., 513 U . S .---,---( 1995 ) ( slip op ., at 9 ), and have noted its " functionally equivalent " alternative characterizations in terms of foreseeability, see Milwaukee & St . Paul R . Co . v . Kellogg, 94 U . S . 469, 475 ( 1877 ) ( " natural and probable consequence " ), and duty, see Palsgraf v . Long Island R . Co ., 248 N . Y . 339, 162 N . E . 99 ( 1928 ).
• :In the US, see proximate cause : " an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury . " There are multiple ways in which this is argued in court . " Palsgraf v . Long Island Railroad Co . ", a classic case, pretty much says, in not so many words, that you are not liable for butterfly effect sorts of things . ( The summary of facts of that case are alone is worth knowing  it's first year law school stuff, the sort of crazy-ass case that makes you go, " dang, life is weird, and law is hard . " )-- talk ) 02 : 12, 11 July 2011 ( UTC)