In the case Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad, 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 1928 N.Y.Lexis 1269 (N.Y.), Justice Cardoza denied recovery for the plaintiff. Justice Cardoza found that the railroad was not the proximate cause of Helen Palsgraf's injuries. The concept of proximate cause is one that is less than precise. In today's world of business can we still be sure that the reasoning used by Cardoza still applies? Has a new standard developed? In reviewing the materials in the text you should be able to discuss the issue of causation in a meaningful and dispassionate manner.

 

Palsgraf v The Long Island Railroad

The case Palsgraf v The Long Island Railroad of 1928 is commonly referenced in business law. The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraft, took a legal action against the Long Island Railroad Company for negligence (Little, 2007). She was waiting for the train to take her children to the beach. Two men attempted to board before her; one of them helped by the Railroad employees dropped a bag causing an explosion. Palsgraft was hit by a large coin-operated scale that came out of the explosion. She suffered minor injuries from the accident. In court, Justice Cardoza ruled against the plaintiff. He ruled that Helen Palsgraf could not claim legal action against the Long Island Railroad as the injury was due to wrong from someone else (Little, 2007). Legal action for negligence occurs when the plaintiff's rights are violated.

           In the modern world, the reasoning used by Cardoza applies in ruling business cases. For case Palsgraf v The Long Island Railroad, the judge could not establish direct causation between Long Island Railroad negligence and the Palsgraf’s injury. In direct causation, the defendant's actions cause harm to the plaintiff without and intervening force. According to Little (2007), the injury to Palsgraf resulted from an explosion of a bag owned by a man trying to board the train. As a result, the Long Island Railroad was not intentionally neglectful or directly involved with the plaintiff’s. The ruling of the case led to the development of the concept of proximate cause. Insurance companies use proximate cause to evaluate the relationship of a loss and the risk insured against (“The principles,” 2018). When there is no direct causation, the insured is not compensated by the insurer. For instance, if a person insures his warehouse against fire and the event occurs, he will not be compensated for the losses incurred from putting down the fire. In most cases, water from fire emergency vehicles can cause spoilage to the products in-store due to pressure and contamination. The principle of proximate cause is widely used in tort law.