who is lirr?
Long Island Railroad
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
the plaintiff had to show that the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR" or "the railroad") had a duty of care
what is palsgraf v. long island railroad co.? Leading case in American tort law. what does that law mean? Addresses torts in United States law. what is torts? A civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. where did it get its name from? A distinctive body of law arose in the common law word traced to English tort law. what kind of reforms are done in it? Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. what is business related issue in it? Tortious interference with trade, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation. in what way did it get its influence from english? Right of victims to receive redress was regarded by later English scholars as one of the rights of Englishmen. when was the first hearing of the aforementioned case? 1928 who were the parties involved in the case? The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf and the railroad. who was the plaintiff in the case? Helen Palsgraf what was the claim of the plaintiff against the other party? Its employees had been negligent while assisting the man, and that she had been harmed by the neglect. who was the judge in it? Benjamin Cardozo what was the appeal made at the start? LIRR argued that the verdict had been contrary to the law and the evidence an Palsgraf argued that the jury verdict finding negligence was supported by undisputed facts, and should not be questioned by the appellate courts.
wiki:17792953
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. [SEP] Background
At the time of the 1928 New York Court of Appeals decision in "Palsgraf", that state's case law followed a classical formation for negligence: the plaintiff had to show that the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR" or "the railroad") had a duty of care, and that she was injured through a breach of that duty. It was not required that she show that the duty owed was to her. Under New York precedent, the usual duty of utmost care that the railroad as a common carrier owed its customers did not apply to platforms and other parts of the station.