Thirty years ago, my Torts Professor played this video or one with the same soundtrack on good old VHS. I think he inherited the tape from a colleague at another school. Was this a law school project? Anyone know the origin? Now my son is in law school and I got to show him this! Thanks RUclips!
If I recall, it was a project from law students at Cleveland-Marshall. I reached out to the lead student, who is practicing law in NYC. But he never got back to me. There are likely a few copies of the video still floating around. Maybe interlibrary loan?
The facts were Bizzarre and of course the ruling that not foreseeable but in today’s world would the result be different? Clearly today we are not allowed explosives in planes etc
The majority opinion decided this under the duty element. I suspect that a modern court would find there was a duty, but then find the railroad was not the proximate cause of Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries.
I am in strong favor of Andrews' dissent. Not that there is a universal duty to care, but there was a duty to care in this case because she was a passenger, and also, how could the explosion be a remote cause? Although I got a B- in Torts, so don't listen to me...
If you look at the number of judges who ruled for Mrs Palsgraf, they are in the majority. The trial court didn’t grant a motion to overturn the verdict, the majority on the intermediate court of appeals ruled for, and only at the NY high court did she lose-by one vote. Foreseeability is a tricky test, with reasonable judges disagreeing.
Great historical photos - this is a law school classic!
Thirty years ago, my Torts Professor played this video or one with the same soundtrack on good old VHS. I think he inherited the tape from a colleague at another school. Was this a law school project? Anyone know the origin? Now my son is in law school and I got to show him this! Thanks RUclips!
If I recall, it was a project from law students at Cleveland-Marshall. I reached out to the lead student, who is practicing law in NYC. But he never got back to me. There are likely a few copies of the video still floating around. Maybe interlibrary loan?
Awesome, great pictures
Many thanks
I haven't heard this one in ages... Thank you.
Deep.
Nice.
Great
Great piece. Pls include Judge Andrews’ dissent in remix.
I've been practicing the cords on my ukulele--maybe one day I will create and sing the dissent :)
Good ole chain of causation and condicio sine qua non. Never heard this, before.
The facts were Bizzarre and of course the ruling that not foreseeable but in today’s world would the result be different? Clearly today we are not allowed explosives in planes etc
The majority opinion decided this under the duty element. I suspect that a modern court would find there was a duty, but then find the railroad was not the proximate cause of Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries.
I am in strong favor of Andrews' dissent. Not that there is a universal duty to care, but there was a duty to care in this case because she was a passenger, and also, how could the explosion be a remote cause? Although I got a B- in Torts, so don't listen to me...
If you look at the number of judges who ruled for Mrs Palsgraf, they are in the majority. The trial court didn’t grant a motion to overturn the verdict, the majority on the intermediate court of appeals ruled for, and only at the NY high court did she lose-by one vote. Foreseeability is a tricky test, with reasonable judges disagreeing.