In 1928, two people tried to catch a train that was leaving a train station; one men successfully jumped aboard a car. The other men, who were carrying a package, jumped as well, but seemingunsteady, as if he were about to fall, a guard on the train tried to pull him in, and another man on the station platform pushed him in from the back. The man successfully got into the train, but thepackage he was carrying fell into the rails and exploded, causing injuries to a woman who was waiting another train on the platform.
The women (plaintiff), Helen Palsgraf, sued the railroad companyfor negligence, claiming her injury resulted from negligent acts of the employee. The trial court and the intermediate appeals court found for plaintiff by verdict from a jury, the railroad company,called Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment.
1. - The plaintiff has the right to claim protection as she is stood upon the platform of the station; she also might claim protectionfor an unexpected hazard that the inappropriate thought of a men (the guard) could cause.
2. – There were no possible way that the guard could be aware of the danger that the package represented; thepackage was covered by a newspaper, and there were no signs of danger, hazard nor flammable content. Therefore the guard couldn’t possible know that the security of the people on the platform where onhazard.
* The Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed is understandable at all, according to Bowen in the Thomas vs. Quartermaine case.* Negligence is not a tor unless it results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong import the violation of a right; in the case, the violation would be the right to beprotected against interference with one´s bodily security.
* The law of causation implies that there must be a causal relationship between conduct and result; there must be an appropriate mens rea so...