Palsgraf

In: Historical Events

Submitted By nerlye1
Words 398
Pages 2
Test #1 – Global 1

Why do we study the Middle East and North Africa together? (think about what they have in common) • You should be able to identify the Middle East and North Africa on a world map, and recognize several countries in these regions

Types of maps – political and physical • Political maps show boundaries of states and countries, major roads, capitals • Physical maps show physical features of the land like mountains, plains, volcanoes

Types of geography (geography = the study of the earth) – physical and human • Human geography studies where people are in the world, what the people are like who live in certain areas, how people impact geography (for example, population density) • Physical geography studies landforms and physical features of the earth

Paleolithic Age – 2.5 million BCE to 8000 BCE • Humans were nomadic (were constantly moving) • Evolved (slowly changed and advanced) by learning to walk upright, making stone tools, etc.

Neolithic Revolution (Agricultural Revolution) – occurred in 8000 BCE • During this revolution, humans stopped being nomadic and settled down into communities and villages (which would later develop into civilizations thousands of years later) • Humans being FARMING (agriculture) – this allowed people to have much more food than they previously had, which made life easier o At the same time, there was a separation between the work that men and women did o Warriors also became important

Characteristics of civilizations – record keeping, advanced cities, specialized workers, advanced technology, complex institutions (like religion, government, military)

First civilizations began around rivers, which provided water and fertile soil for people to farm • The civilization of Mesopotamia (also known as the Fertile Crescent) developed around…...

Similar Documents

Elements of Negligence

...Therefore, failing to see the plaintiff being dragged by the attackers is an act of omission on the hotel’s part. Mr. Margreiter suffered injuries after being severely beaten by his attackers and there are medical reports to back up his claims. Hotel’s Defense The hotel can rely on the principle of legal causation or the remoteness of harm. This is a principle that helps absolve defendants from exposure to liability of an indeterminate amount for a period of time that is not determinable for a class that is indeterminate, as per Justice Cardozo, J. when the negligence is too remote i.e. not one of a proximate cause the defendant cannot be held liable for any harm that the plaintiff suffers from. This was the situation in the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) In this case, Mr. Margreiter, went out drinking and the hotel cannot be held liable for the injuries he suffered as a result. The hotel could not accord him security outside the hotel’s premises. Case 2 1). The court relied on the principles of negligence, as is the prerequisite of Common law. It considered whether the hotel and its employees were negligent. The answer was in the affirmative and it means the plaintiff was able to prove all the elements required to pin down the defendant. The court also considered the principle of proximate cause and it ruled on the affirmative. It also considered the principle of contributory negligence against Mrs. Nordmann and......

Words: 864 - Pages: 4

Palsgraf V. the Long Island Rsiroad Company

...– Liability without fault. Franco Chuquilin Business Law Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, Wed 1928 N.Y. Lexis 1269 Court of Appeals of New York, 1928 Key Facts * Mrs. Palsgraf was standing on a Long Island Railroad train platform when two men ran to catch a train.  * The second man was carrying a small package containing fireworks. He was helped aboard the train by one guard on the platform and another on the train. The man dropped the package which exploded when it hit the tracks. * The shock of the explosion caused scales at the other end of the platform many feet away to fall, striking and injuring Palsgraf. *  Palsgraf brought a personal injury lawsuit against Long Island Railroad and the railroad appealed the court’s judgment in favor of Palsgraf. * The judgment was affirmed on appeal and Long Island Railroad appealed. Issue - How is the duty of due care that is owed determined? To whom does a party owe the duty of due care? Rule - A duty that is owed must be determined from the risk that can reasonably be foreseen under the circumstances. A defendant owes a duty of care only to those who are in the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger. Analysis - * The court held that the conduct of Long Island Railroad’s guard was wrongful in relation to the man carrying the parcel, but not in relation to Palsgraf standing far away. No one was on notice that the package contained......

Words: 702 - Pages: 3

Business Law

...Torts and the more progressive Restatement (Third) Torts: Product Liability vantage points. A. Introduction 1) History 2) Role fault-based torts today 3) Role of product liability today B. Negligence 1) Five Elements of the prima facie case 1. Duty 2. Breach 3. Actual cause 4. Proximate cause 5. Damage 2) Damages available 3) Duty 1. Nature of Duty 2. Nature of Right 3. Due of Care 4. Reasonable Person Test a. Uniform standard of behavior b. Test: What a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstances i. Consideration of physical characteristics ii. Consideration of knowledge iii. Factors iv. Role of Foreseeabilty v. CASE: Palsgraf: Justice Cardozo writes that a defendant is liable only if the danger is foreseeable. This portion of the opinion is ripe with scenarios that test the student’s understanding of the doctrine of foreseeability as it is applied to the duty of a defendant in an action for negligence. 5. Degrees of Negligence 6. Malpractice a. Employed to professional persons b. Change in the reasonable person standard. Why? c. Areas: Medical, legal, accounting 4) Special Doctrines that Show Negligence 1. Introduction 2. Res Ipsa Loquitur a. Definition: Negligence is presumed where the defendant had control over the cause of the injury and it is logical that the defendant is the only person or entity that could......

Words: 687 - Pages: 3

Business Law

...I. CITATION Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) II. THE FACTS a. Material Helen Palsgraf was standing on a train platform waiting for a train. Another passenger was assisted by two railroad guards while attempting to board the moving train and he dropped the package he was carrying onto the tracks. The package was filled with fireworks and exploded causing scales to fall at the other end of the platform onto Ms. Palsgraf thus injuring her. b. Legal Ms. Palsgraf brought a personal injury suit against the Long Island Railroad. The court found in favor for Ms. Palsgraf. The Long Island Railroad appealed and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The Defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals which overturned the lower court’s decision. III. LEGAL ISSUES c. Specific Did the guards act in a manner that was negligent to the plaintiff when a assisting another man onto the moving train causing his package to fall, explode and cause injury to the plaintiff? d. General Was the harm resulting from this action reasonably able to be predicted? IV. THE HOLDING There was no negligence on the part of the guards. V. LEGAL RATIONALE Chief Justice Cordozo reasoned there “Here, by concession, there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage throughout the station. The Dissenting opinion argued that because......

Words: 320 - Pages: 2

Palsgraf V. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief

...Palsgraf v. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief By: Jeffrey Boswell, Steven Casillas, Antwan Deligar & Randy Durham BMGT 380 Professor Eden Allyn 26 May 13 Facts The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, filed a suit against the Long Island Rail Road Company. The plaintiff claimed the Long Island Railroad Company’s negligence resulted in injury to her person. A passenger was attempting to board a moving train and lost his footing. The man looked as though he was going to fall. A guard reached out to help the man onto the train and another guard attempted to push him onto the train from behind. The man was carrying a box that was covered by a newspaper. As the guard reached to catch the man, the box was dislodged and fell on the tracks. Once the box hit the tracks it exploded and caused a chain reaction. On the other side of the platform the explosion caused scales to fall on the plaintiff. Issue The court must decide if the plaintiff’s rights were violated. Since she filled a suit of negligence against the Long Island Railroad Company she must prove four things. She must prove that the defendant owed her a duty of care. Second, she must prove that the defendants breached that duty. Third, the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that she suffered a legally recognizable injury (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2012, p. 136). Ruling The appeals court reversed the...

Words: 790 - Pages: 4

Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad

...Helen Palsgraf was standing on a Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) platform in New York City, waiting for a train to take her and her two daughters. While she was waiting for her train, another train pulled in, and two passengers came running across the platform to catch it. One of the passengers was carrying a package under his arm. The train began leaving the platform, and two LIRR employees (one on the train, one on the ground) attempted to help the passengers get on board while the train was moving. As they pulled the passengers onto the train, the package fell to the platform. Unbeknownst to the railroad workers, the package contained fireworks. The men were on their way to a celebration in Queens, and had brought several rockets with them to light up. As soon as the package hit the ground, it exploded. The explosion could be heard several blocks away; a stampede erupted on the crowded platform as people began running. Palsgraf, at the other end of the platform, was not hurt by the explosion itself. Rather, the explosion knocked over a large scale next to Palsgraf, which fell on her and struck her in the arm, hip, and thigh. She was able to walk with great difficulty, but was unable to continue her job as a housekeeper, and began suffering from shock-related symptoms a few days later, including stuttering. Palsgraf prepared the case against the Long Island Railroad. LIRR argued that its employees had not been negligent in the events that led up to Palsgraf's injury.......

Words: 1626 - Pages: 7

Negligence

...reasonable person will inform herself of the manners of the dog before putting her hand out to pet the dog. Negligence may be defined differently amongst jurisdictions, but conduct from which liability will flow is determined by the core elements of: duty, breach, causation, and damages. This paper will discuss the first three elements of negligence and how each element is defined in context to the Palsgraf opinion to better understand the reasoning of the majority and minority viewpoints. DUTY Duty is extremely important, as discussed below in more detail with an examination of the Palsgraf case, because a defendant may negligently cause injury to the plaintiff, but may not be liable if he did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. A significant departure from the other elements, duty is the only element decided first by the court, while each of the other elements is determined by the jury. Duty is best determined by the court to limit the notion of a “universal duty” of care a jury might find more easily than a judge when considering overall “policy” objectives. In the Palsgraf case, the Long Island Railroad was not liable for negligence because Justice Cardozo determined that she was not a foreseeable plaintiff, stating that the conduct of the plaintiff’s guard might have done wrong to the person being helped aboard the train by the train’s employees, but that action was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Cardozo went on to state:“......

Words: 3700 - Pages: 15

Your the Judge

...119). Zoom Car Company showed negligence by not having proper inspection or testing the product of the car compass before they installed it. The best theory is one of strict liability which applies in product liability cases. It holds all those within the chain of distribution responsible for injuries without requiring proof of fault. Zoom has a very strong defense which rests on the principle of proximate cause. They would correctly argue that the faulty compass was not the actual, or proximate, cause of Boone’s injuries. They would argue that the proximate cause of his injuries rests solely in the hands of his assailants and only they could be held responsible. They would prevail with this argument. Please review this concept and the Palsgraf decision in your text. In addition, under the doctrine of strict liability in tort, Zoom Car Company and Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules Inc. are both strict liable for Mr. Boone’s injuries. “All parties in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for the injuries caused by that product. Thus, all manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, lessors, and sub-component manufacturers may be sued under the doctrine of strict liability in tort” (Cheeseman, pg. 121). Excellent! Well, Zoom Car Company and Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. may state they preformed proper inspection and tests before they sold the compass. In this situation, they are still strictly liable for Mr.......

Words: 865 - Pages: 4

Palsgraph vs. Long Island Railroad Co.

...Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. The case reading begins by explaining that a woman named Helen Palsgraf was awaiting a train on a station platform, when all of a sudden she noticed a man running toward a train that was leaving the station. The man who was attempting to board the train had a package in his hand. As the man leaped onto the train, a railroad guard on the train helped pull him aboard, while another railroad guard on the platform helped push him aboard. While all of this was occurring, the man happened to drop his package onto the railroad tracks, which then proceeded to explode. The explosion on the tracks caused scales on the platform to fall directly on Helen Palsgraf, causing physical injuries. There were no prior warnings that there were fireworks enclosed in the package. Palsgraf (the plaintiff) then decided to sue Long Island Railroad Company (the defendant) due to negligence. While the jury and the appellate court found that the railroad guards had been negligent, the railroad company appealed to New York’s highest state court (Clarkson, Miller, Cross 2014) In my opinion, the major question proposed in this case is “what constitutes negligence?”. Although Palsgraf claimed that the railroad guards were the proximate cause of her injuries, one may see this case differently. One may argue that this statement is incorrect because the incident and injuries sustained were unforeseeable, which would mean that Long Island Railroad Company was not...

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Business Law Midterm

... | |c. |only those whose injuries could have been reasonably foreseen. | |d. |only those whose vehicles were closest to Rod's van. | ____ 47. In Case 7.2, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., the court decided that the railroad employee's conduct was not wrong in relation to Palsgraf but did not decide whether the conduct was negligent toward the man with the package (that led to Palsgraf's injury). If the court determined that the railroad employee was negligent with regard to the man with the package, would the railroad have been liable for the injury to Palsgraf? |a. |Yes, because negligence to one party creates negligence to all other parties injured as a result. | |b. |No, because Palsgraf's injury was still not foreseeable. | |c. |Yes, because of the doctrine of assumption of risk. | |d. |No, because Palsgraf was also negligent. | ____ 48. Will enters the Xtreme Decathlon, an athletic competition. Regarding the risk of injury, Will assumes |a. |all of the risks associated with the event. ...

Words: 4014 - Pages: 17

Business Law

...Case 9.1 Facts: Palsgraf was standing on a railroad platform buying ticket. When train stopped two man ran to catch train. On of them fell, and two railroad employees tried to help this man. A package with fireworks fell on the ground and exploded. Plaintiff was injured because of the explosion. Issue: Was the railroad company liable for Ms. Palsgraf’s injury? Or. Was Ms. Palsgraf’s injury a reasonably foreseeable injury? Rule: Negligence requires that a person with a duty of care, breach that duty and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff. Proximate cause requires that the injury to the plaintiff be a reasonably foreseeable risk of the breach of duty. Analysis: Plaintiff had no prove that package had fireworks in it and when dropped it could cause a explosion. In that case Plaintiff had to show that there was violation of her rights. Employees who were trying to help one of the passengers were negligent in explosion. The explosion caused scales at the end of the platform fall on plaintiff. However employees were not negligent in relation to the plaintiff, who was far away from the accident. Is passenger at the other end of the platform protected by the Law against the unsuspected hazard concealed beneath the waste? If not, is the result to be any different, so far as the distant passenger is concerned, when the guard stumbles over a valise, which a truck man or a porter has left upon the walk? The conduct of the......

Words: 321 - Pages: 2

Blaw

...negligent in his spraying operation.| b.|Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence.| c.|Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.| d.|Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.| ANS: C MSC: AACSB Reflective Thinking 12. If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is: a.|strict liability.| b.|res ipsa loquitur.| c.|negligence per se.| d.|assumption of the risk.| ANS: C MSC: AACSB Analytic 13. The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in the Palsgraf case is the doctrine of: a.|res ipsa loquitur.| b.|proximate cause and foreseeability.| c.|negligence per se.| d.|assumption of the risk.| ANS: B MSC: AACSB Analytic 14. Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard? a.|Physical disability.| b.|Superior skill or knowledge.| c.|Emergency circumstances.| d.|All of the above are considered.| ANS: D MSC: AACSB Analytic 15. The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is: a.|proximate cause.| b.|res ipsa loquitur.| c.|causation in fact.| d.|comparative negligence.| ANS: B MSC: AACSB Analytic 16. William, who is a......

Words: 8327 - Pages: 34

Case Study Analysis of Palsgraf V. Long Island Railroad Company

...Case Study Analysis of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company Michael J. Roberts Liberty University Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Company is a case where the plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraf, was on one end of a train platform when a package was knocked out of the hands of another passenger who was attempting to board a moving train with the assistance of a guard, the defendant, on the other end of the train platform. The package being knocked out of the passenger’s arms and onto the ground created an explosion which knocked over some scales that were near Ms. Palsgraf and caused harm to her at the opposite end of the train platform. Mr. Palsgraf is taking the Long Island Rail Company, representing the guard on the platform, to court for damages she suffered through the injuries caused by the scale falling on her as a result of the guards assisting another passenger onto the train and knocking the package out which then exploded. Negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong imports the violation of a right, in this case, we are told, the right to be protected against interference with one’s bodily security. (Edwards, 1999, p. 131) In this case negligence is not a consideration as the guard was unaware of the contents of the passenger and he was doing his duty in protecting the passenger by pushing him onto the train before he fell off and injured himself. Proximate cause concerns arise because it may sometimes......

Words: 858 - Pages: 4

Business Law

...linked to violence or theft. * Failure to provide a safe workplace: According to Barton, the company should have taken into account the increased risks, to determine the right security level, associated with restaurants open late at night. Yet, although some crimes did take place by the premise of the restaurant, the evidence did not show the rampant, violent criminal activity to raise a fact issue about foreseeability. Palsgraf v. Long Island Ry. Co. (306-308) a. Defendant (Appellant): Long Island Ry. Co Plaintiff (Appellee): Palsgraf The Facts: * Due to an unexpected chain of events, Palsgraf was injured, as she was waiting for her train: Passenger dropped backpack, trying to reach train, helped by employees of station, fireworks exploded, vibrations led to falling of parcels on Plaintiff. She filed suit against the company. The ruling: The trial court found Long Ry. Co. to be guilty. However, the court of appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint, considering the company to be non-liable for the injuries due to lack of foreseeability. The Palsgraf case established foreseeability as the test for proximate cause. Judicial Opinion: There was no way that the guard could have known that the package wrapped in newspaper was dangerous, and that pushing the passenger would thereby cause an explosion. Without any perception that one's actions could harm someone, there could be no duty towards that person, and therefore no negligence for which to impose......

Words: 4325 - Pages: 18

Xeco212 Week1

...the high court of Tennessee held that Ernst: a. was negligent in its accounting, which was the cause of the loss suffered by Bethlehem. b. intentionally hid the company's problems from Bethlehem and could be assessed punitive damages. c. did the work for the other company and owed no duty of care to Bethlehem. d. met the standards of the profession; it was not reasonable to it to foresee the financial problems that would come about later. status: correct (1.0) correct: a your answer: a feedback: Correct. The firm did not live up to the standard of care expected of a professional accountant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Ms. Palsgraf was injured by falling machinery at the Long Island terminal, the high court of New York held that: a. the railroad was subject to strict liability since it offered its services to the public. b. the railroad's conduct was a substantial factor in the injury she suffered, so it was liable. c. the railroad's conduct was the cause in fact of her injury, so it was liable. d. the railroad did nothing that was the proximate cause of her injury, so no liability. status: incorrect (0.0) correct: d your answer: c feedback: Incorrect. The railroad did not act directly so as to cause her injury. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 The......

Words: 1771 - Pages: 8