Talk:Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2017.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 30, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 14, 2017	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New York City / Operations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of case

A question has been raised on the actual title of this case-- not the abbreviated title, but the case name itself. The website of the New York Courts lists the name as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company. [1] Defendant's actual name however apparently used the term Rail Road, not Railroad. Could someone with access to the North East reporter or official state reporter confirm the name used by the Court of Appeals in its decision? Thank you. Kablammo 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEXIS reports it as "Railroad" in the case name, so I've moved the article accordingly. Postdlf 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of the case readability

Influence of the Case is something like 2 pages of a single paragraph. Could someone kind break that up please?

On the same note, while I as a 1L appreciate the analysis, can we get some cites as to who did the analysis? Or should the author just add his/her sig? --Psyphics_ΨΦ 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically not, since the analysis can be edited by anyone. It is formed by consensus. Brianga (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the analysis

I do not think the analysis of the opinions is correct. The turning-point in the majority and dissenting opinion is the definition of proximate cause. Under Cardozo's definitation, there was no legal causation for her injuries, but under Andrews' there was. I believe this should be further discussed. Maybe I am not reading this blurb intelligently, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlapee (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are mistaken. It's common for people to misinterpret Palsgraf as a foreseeability case when, in actuality, it's a duty case. The majority and dissent focused in on two different elements. Cardozo was concerned with the duty aspect, reasoning that a duty of care with regard to the woman could not be imposed on the guard because she was not at a foreseeable risk of injury from his actions. In contrast, the dissent focused in on causation, thinking it sufficient that the guard's actions were inherently wrong and set in motion the chain of events that injured Palsgraf. Of course, since the majority makes the law, Palsgraf stands for the proposition that one owes no duty to those outside the foreseeable "zone of danger."-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardozo (in the majority): "The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us." Even if Palsgraf is a duty case, it is strained to say that it establishes proximate cause in American law. Proximate cause (in some sense) was _already_ in American law, and Cardozo here was urging a competitor principle to proximate cause.68.101.215.30 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear article text

A new editor left this note on my talk page today...

the case history etc seems to indicate that the Appellate Division dismissed the complain which I believe is not the case. I think it was 3-2 upholding the trial court. The COA then reversed the two lower courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpete3.5 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that he wrote to me because my edit to update one of the categories is currently the most recent in the article history. I am not familiar with this article's text or with legal documentation and analysis, so I'll leave this feedback to editors who can make appropriate changes to the article. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 14:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Law

How would English Law have handled this case? Is this case studied in English Law schools? Can anyone associated with English Law enter into a discussion about this case? jall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7E1A:5700:7036:36F5:D8D0:C727 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to me (as an English lawyer) reading the case, and to note how similar it is in both reasoning and outcome to Lord Atkin's decision in the equivalent English case: Donoghue v Stevenson: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." Also interesting that Palsgraf (1928) and Donoghue (1932) were decided at very similar periods of time in history, and both marked a move away from the old tests predicated on directly caused harm to tests based upon foreseeability. It looks like a few others have noted this similarity over the years: [2] --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]