Prof. Epstein excerpts a large part of the court’s
upholding of the verdict which includes many of the details (editing the
casebook does involve some judgment).
The basics of the situation that physically occurred reads
like something out of Rube Goldberg (famous for intricate and inefficient
devices whose functioning was so improbable and so complex people loved it).
A passenger (A) tried to board a moving train. Railroad
Employee 1 and Railroad Employee 2 both tried to assist the passenger but one
tried to pull him onto the train, the other tried to push. During the confusion,
Passenger A dropped his wrapped package. Did we forget to mention the package
was full of explosives?
The explosives fall onto the track. By still more bad luck,
the fireworks went off and the explosion caused some scales to fall and hit a
woman, Passenger B. Since she was injured, she sued the company alleging that
the negligence of the railroad employees was improper and that the chain of
events was a result (and thus the railroad had to compensate her).
The court and those that reviewed the case later all found
the actions of the railroad’s employees, who tried to help a passenger board a
moving train, negligent. That would seem to justify liability because an
improper action had taken place.
Not so. One of the reviewing courts pointed out the cause of
the scale falling on Passenger B was so remote and so unpredictable that the
railroad should not be held responsible for something they had no way to
predict.
That very much looks like a reversal of the Vosburg v. Putney case to me. Perhaps
the issue is that the chain of events between action and harm is shorter in Vosburg v. Putney while it is much
longer in Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.?
The court seems to have ruled that the defendant in a negligence case is liable
only so far as they have acted unreasonably. A man who kicks a newspaper does
not violate the body of another, not even when an unknown package of dynamite
is triggered by the kick.
While the series of reversals is complex enough, the
intricacy of the arguments by the judges in question is difficult for me (a man
of relatively high reading comprehension). I can only hope I acquire the much
needed context in Law
School.
If the same principle was operating back during Vosburg v. Putney, would the case have been decided the same way? Was it actually operating back then?
If the same principle was operating back during Vosburg v. Putney, would the case have been decided the same way? Was it actually operating back then?
No comments:
Post a Comment