What’s Inside The Box? (The Case Of)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
When are you responsible for what’s in the box?
Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 30 days free curiositystrea... Special EXTENDED version only on Nebula!
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). #TrueCrime #LegalEagle
Written by Devin Stone, Ilyse Fishman, & Tricia Aurand
Illustrations by Nik Gothic and Alex Duran
Edited by Amy McClung
Voices by Alexander Masters, Jamie Werner, and Kevin O’Connell
Summary from Wikipedia:
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United States Supreme Court justice.
The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was waiting at a Long Island Rail Road station in August 1924 while taking her daughters to the beach. Two men attempted to board the train before hers; one (aided by railroad employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale on the platform to hit her. After the incident, she began to stammer, and subsequently sued the railroad, arguing that its employees had been negligent while assisting the man, and that she had been harmed by the neglect. In May 1927 she obtained a jury verdict of $6,000, which the railroad appealed. Palsgraf gained a 3-2 decision in the Appellate Division, and the railroad appealed again. Cardozo wrote for a 4-3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case.
A number of factors, including the bizarre facts and Cardozo's outstanding reputation, made the case prominent in the legal profession, and it remains so, taught to most if not all American law students in torts class. Cardozo's conception, that tort liability can only occur when a defendant breaches a duty of care the defendant owes to a plaintiff, causing the injury sued for, has been widely accepted in American law. In dealing with proximate cause, many states have taken the approach championed by the Court of Appeals' dissenter in Palsgraf, Judge William S. Andrews.
(Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
www.youtube.co...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. So I decided to make my own series exploring real cases and true crime. I believe that if you give people the relevant information they can make informed decisions about our world. The “law” is not necessarily the statutes that are passed by congress but are the rules that everyone agrees to live by. This series explores the cases and stories that shaped our law.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
👮♂️What case should I do next?
🚀Get CuriosityStream/Nebula to watch thousands of documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle and get the EXTENDED VERSION of this video!
The McDonald's coffee case. Reality vs urban legend
Thank you! How about Weirum v. RKO General, 1975? It was a case that set a major presidence for libel and tort based judgements in the future. Also, thanks again for this.
Not a case, but ever thought of night court 🐱🚀
When will this be available on nebula?
Citizens United.
Everyone was so focused on the box they never questioned why the scale wasn’t better secured 😢
That's what I was thinking! Any kind of panicking could lead to someone hitting it, causing it to fall over.
Classic American mistake of seeing the forest for the trees.
Exactly my question. Would love to know if this was actually examined in the trial.
It's 1928. No one ever expected something so heavy to fall over.
It may have been. It’s not designed to withstand an explosion though. The wiki has a witness describing it as “the scale was blown to pieces”. Its hard to prepare for that...
If I were her attorney I would have argued that the "negligence" was because of the heavy scale not secured properly.
And let's not forget the piece of metal dragging along the bottom of the train, either. Improper maintenance could have caused any number of accidents, and it was absolutely foreseeable that the scale could be tipped over and land on someone!
@@alliekingsley7919 while there wasn't a possibility of the train being derailed, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened later due to improper maintenance
Though that would be against the railway station, not the long Island railway company
I feel like the negligence would be in the fact that such a huge heavy scale was not properly secured to the ground.
Agreed. Especially since they aren't even sure how it fell over (knocked over by a person or by the explosion itself in the two alternate scenarios). Anything could have knocked it over in this situation or any other, so it falling on someone is very foreseeable.
Really good point
Good point Brandi R
Agreed from a present day perspective. I think it’s possible this case predates the regulations that would support that though.
Indeed. Everything before that seems unimportant.
15:13 before I hear the verdict, the railroad could have avoided the lawsuit if the scale was simply bolted down. I think having an object that was heavy and tall being able to be knocked over is a hazard. It either needed not be there or bolted to the platform as a safety measure. The railroad is negligent in that aspect, not so responsible for the explosions as they pointed out.
and also when mayhems like this happens they didn't have proper protocols which falls under their duty of care, like in airports and possibly most stations nowadays
I just want to say that your channel has actually changed my life in a way. I dropped out of grad school after realizing that I didn't want to work in the field I was studying, and your channel made me take a more serious look at law than I had before. It's thanks to your content that now I'm working toward becoming a paralegal, and I'm really excited. I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do, I just wanted to say thank you for making the world of law more accessible and interesting for folks like me.
EDIT: lol actually instead of becoming a paralegal I'm heading to law school instead.
+
GOOD LUCK BECAUSE IT'S HARD!!!!
As the son of a woman who worked as a paralegal for over two decades, and on behalf of Legal Eagle...I am so very sorry.
15:06 Everything about the fireworks is totally irrelevant. The railroad left an unstable heavy load on a crowded platform. The danger this posed was completely foreseeable even if the precise details of how it eventually toppled onto someone were not. The railroad is entirely at fault.
EDIT: OMG, that actual verdict is outrageous.
I agree with everything you mentioned, except for the fireworks being irrelevant. Granted, I don’t know what the laws were then, but the railroads failure to have regulations/rules for ‘dangerous’ packages/items, be they tigers or explosives. That with the unsecured scale, firmly places the liability on them. At least to my totally non-lawyer mind.
Unstable how? Clearly it had been there for an extended period of time with no issue. In addition, it had been used multiple times before, given it had a considerable amount of change inside of it, at least according to the video. If, over an extended period of existence and use it had never once toppled before, it is not reasonable to assume it is unstable. In addition, judges cannot add in this sort of thing. They have to go with what was presented before them otherwise they drift into the realm of making decisions based on self biased reasoning without facts that were presented.
@@ccapwell I'm calling it unstable based on the fact that a single person was able to knock it over by accident. (Or it was knocked over by mere fireworks, but that version of events sounds extremely unlikely -- a blast in the track well powerful enough to knock over a heavy object all the way on the platform would have left a ton of unambiguous evidence.)
Regarding your procedural criticisms, you're approaching this wrong. None of us here have sifted through the primary sources so we don't even know exactly what evidence was presented and what arguments were made, and almost none of us are lawyers anyway. This is a place for discussion of what *should* have happened and what the law *should* be rather than trying to strictly interpret the law as it existed a century ago.
@@guptadagger896 That'd be relevant if we were talking about whether the employee/railroad was liable for the lost box of fireworks.
@@wfjhDUI The liability doesn't rest with the box, nor the fact that the man was pushed. The liability rests with a scale owned by the railroad falling on a waiting passenger.
LegalEagle: at which point someone is responsible?
Comments: THE SCALE!!!!
That's how you think like a lawyer!
I know right. Lol
@Edge Valmond
The train company policy guaranteed a safe ride, an implied contract. That implies a standard of safety for the train itself and parts therein. I expect there to be regular inspections, say once a week or more frequently. Such inspections should find that damage to the car carriage. There is obvious, preventable or rectifyable damage. They should know that such damage would cause sparks that could even cause fires on the wooden ties.
Can you do one on the case of the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lady? So many people used her as a punchline of a joke without realizing just how severe her injuries were and what McDonald's did to cause them.
Many others have done revealing analyses of that case, it's difficult to bring anything new to it.
I remember back when I was in high school, I had to wait at least a half hour before being able to physically drink their coffee. A few years ago, I bought one and cautiously tried to sip at it immediately after getting it, and found it to be lukewarm (it truly tasted like it couldn't make up its mind on whether to be hot coffee or iced coffee). Afterward, I found out about that case.
YES. She wasn’t angry that she spilled coffee on herself, the poor woman was angry about the fact that the coffee was hot enough to injure her severely. She was only seeking compensation for her hospital bills.
This would be a good case. I read the extensive amount of reconstructive surgery she had to have done, and I was appalled at how many people thought she was just dumb or being greedy.
@@Kettie5 I think she had like third degree burns on her groin and thighs.
The medical bills were like 40,000$ if I remember correctly.
Without knowing the verdict, my guess is that the court ruled in favor of Mrs. Palsgraf. There are numerous examples of negligence on the part of the Long Island Railroad Co. in this situation. These include:
• Inadequate employee training. The worker who pushed Harry onto the train should have instead prevented him from boarding as a safety precaution. That the worker did not immediately know and adhere to the safest option suggests that he may not have been made aware of it to begin with, and that enforcement of safety protocols is lax.
• The brass penny scale that fell on top of Mrs. Palsgraf was a safety hazard to begin with. It should have been either a) fastened to the ground, or b) erected near a wall. If set up properly, neither a firecracker explosion nor a panicked patron should have been able to knock it over.
• The loose piece of metal at the bottom of the train went unnoticed and/or unrectified. A firecracker explosion was one of many potential incidents that could have happened due to the loose pipe.
• They didn't have a plan in place for crowd control. No barriers, no emergency exits, and whoever they had for security didn't seem to make much of an effort to get the situation under control (again, I point to inadequate training).
The Long Island Railroad Co. might not have been able to predict what was in the box, but they are still partially responsible for Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries. They didn't maintain a safe environment for workers or passengers. With or without firecrackers, the conditions at the station were such that an accident of some sort was almost inevitable.
Oof, these are all good points. Too bad they ruled in favor of the railroad :/
Kurtis C. Good points.
None of those points were mentioned in the case as it was presented in this video. The judge cannot present their own evidence, they can only work with what they're explicitly given.
@@Jacob-ge1py In other words, the attorney for Mrs. Palsgraf failed to present the best possible case for their client against the railroad company.
@@KurtisC93 Sadly that seems to be the case. I actually agree with the Judge here since Mrs. Palsgraf attorney seemed to be arguing that that the firework explosion itself was the railroad company's fault which I think most reasonable people would agree is not the case. Now if the attorney had taken your approach and instead argue that the railroad company had created unsafe conditions to begin with, and that the fireworks simply revealed said unsafe condition, it probably would have worked better.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that the one responsible here is the person/entity that did not secure the brass scale onto the ground. That in itself is a safety risk that's just waiting to be knocked over.
maybe it was mounted securly, but the bolts rusted over time. The blame is on the entity that has operated the scale. They can try to recover it from the scale manufacturer or installer. But as either entity, I would ask the scale operator for the maintenance record. There is not one? Well, I guess the bolts where damaged due to vandalism. Please prove otherwise with a maintenance record.
@@sarowie then someone is at fault for not maintaining it correctly
Not everyone. You do represent me.
If I was a juror, I'd want to know:
How much force it takes to tip the scale?
Who made the scale?
Who made the decision to place the scale at that location?
The presence of the fireworks was irrelevant to the size, weigh and balance of the scale and the dangers that posed.
Objection: Why did the judges not question how heavy the scale was or why LIRR did not have it secured to prevent it from falling on a passenger? Do the judges on appeal not have a duty to ask such questions when determining judgments?
This is the actual question. They could not expect the fireworks, but they should expect something to knock down a heavy scale that is not bolted to the floor.
The appellant court is not supposed to take new facts into consideration. They decide the merits of the case as presented/decided on initially, you can't just introduce new sh*t along the way (although there are loopholes to this...).
No, that’s now what appeals courts are for.
That would be a question on Matthew Wood, the lawyer of Mrs Palsgraf. Judges don't question things, they judge presented statements.
@@stensoft exactly he could have brought it up in the original trial.
"All the way in the other side of the station"
The lady was ten feet away 😳
I really hate how people twist words.
Ahahaha I love it!
@@classonbread5757 Lawyers will go on and on about how they're debating "facts" but when it comes down to it, all their "facts" are merely biased opinion dressed up nicely to support their own position. That's not justice, its the tactics of a con man.
It's all about the words used. Language matters in law - more than most people realize.
@@wendybabendy Indeed, a lawyer is closest to a politician. Both are experts at word-craft. Using the arts of language to sway people to their point of view, no matter how rational that view may be.
Any explosion powerful enough to knock over a heavy scale from three metres away would have also killed several people. It seems much more likely that a startled man, suddenly pumped full of adrenaline and trying to flee the danger, accidentally used his full strength on the scales which otherwise wouldn't have toppled.
Why wasn't the fact that a heavy scale not being secured to the ground brought up? Also absolutely love these videos!
TreyShawn42 I thought the same! Upon looking into it, the scale was very likely not that heavy. Consider how the lady’s physical injury was just bruising and the fact that it didn’t require much effort to tip over. That being said, it still definitely should have been secured to the ground.
First thing that came to my mind!
Recently, a friend of mine at the same base was almost crushed by heavy equipment improperly secured for sea. Upon an order for a hard turn, the equipment shifted and almost crushed my friend (who was unharmed, happily). The fault would not have been the commanding officer who gave the order, nor the sailor at the helm. It would fall upon the air crewman who improperly secured the equipment for sea, with possibly the deck officer and crew chief failing to ensure the readiness of their respective duties.
And, of course, the Navy would be financially liable.
Right. The fireworks are actually irrelevant. It didn't require a panic caused by fireworks to knock over the scale and injure someone.
@@jb17415 The heaviness might had been partially dependent on the amount of coins inside and where it was stored. If too high, the center of mass would had made it unstable with any type of push while keeping the overall mass high.
@@jb17415
If she had medical bills it was significant
The negligence was that there was no way to stop the scale from falling, or even a warning that it was not secure. The railroad also did not seem to check or even ask what was in the box.
It was the twenties. Any court, like this one did, would have seen the negligence as allowing a woman outside without a man. Duh.
adding a warning that the scale might fall over ironically would not reduce but increase liability. the rail station operator would have seen that sign on a regular maintenance walk and would have had to act.
@@goryguy5106 1920s... not 1820s.
@@sisuguillam5109 He's really not too far off. Women didn't have the right to vote until 1920. Until 1922, if a woman married a man, she loses her citizenship and becomes the citizen of whatever country her husband was. Women couldn't open a bank account on their own until 1960 (previously your husband or father had to open one for you, and they could take it away whenever they wanted). What we see now as the modern woman (in the US) is actually a fairly recent phenomena build on decades of legal struggle for equality. Got some more distance to go (both for men's rights too), but we're getting there.
@@Lukkaboc They were still allowed to be outside on their own. Women of the working class have always travelled outside the home to work as maids, cooks, cleaners and similar for wealthy people, even if they didn't have the right to vote or earn property. Comments like those by @GoRyGuy are just stupid and unfunny jokes that massively dumb down history.
Imagine how different so many of theses crazy stories would be if the medical bills were paid for by taxes instead of creating an impossible challenge for someone who already had a bad time
I agree. Think of the premise of the show Breaking Bad. Walter Whites’ motivation to start cooking meth completely disappears if he lives in Canada. Mostly.
Imagine if all taxes were for first responders, medical bills and community maintenance, instead of the budget/pocket of governors to do stupid crap like painting streets, swapping all stop signs for roundabouts, knocking down buildings just to build new ones. I think it'd be a much better system than either American or Canadian tax.
@@Sam-iw6te actually stop signs for roundabouts are better and actually do something
@@nguyennga9164 I agree, but why are we paying for traffic efficiencies when we could be paying medical bills?
@@Sam-iw6te because roundabouts save lives
It's an interesting case, wasn't surprised by the outcome, my question is why is such a heavy scale not bolted to the ground
Likely because there was no expectation for things like that to be bolted to the ground during the time period.
Also legal eagle embellished the story a bit, (as many modern retellings do) there is no indication that the scales were heavy or that she was "crushed" only that the scales fell on her and the impact resulted in bruising. The shock she suffered from may have resulted from the chaotic nature of the incident unravelling rather then any impact from the scales themselves.
if you read the Appeals courts decision, the judgement barely mentions the scales, When you look back at court documents from that time period apparently no one, not even her own attorney's thought that the scales themselves should be under any great scrutiny.
Now i don't know if the scales were heavy or not, as i couldn't find any information on the details of the scales themselves.
But describing the scales which struck Ms Palsgraf as "old timey" "heavy" and "crushing" is not based on historical information. Which is understandable he's providing entertainment and recounting things from an emotive legal perspective and not from a boring historical review of scales, Unfortunately that conjures certain mental images which may or may not be accurate.
I know when i heard legal eagle talking, my mind went to those bulky vintage scales with the large wheel one might find cemented to a boardwalk today. whilst these can easily weigh over 100kg's, there were many different designs especially in the 20's when slim models featuring weight + fortune were being rolled out along with spring less designs. There were models that weighed no more then 20kg's (dry). fun fact weighers actually started getting heavier from the late 20's - 40's as bigger bulkier models were harder to steal and knock over, these designs were rolled out in response to the large scale theft and vandalism which was hurting owners.
@Marian Gherca I said it fell and that medical attention reported she had a few bruises and was suffering from shock.
She had no injuries consistent with being crushed and wasn't even hospitalized.
@@louiscypher4186 I feel like this comment hasn't gotten enough attention. This is *exactly* what I was looking for after I was done watching. Devin emphasizes so much on the scale during the chaos but then the case itself basically ignores it. I feel the detail of her not being hospitalized after being hit by the scales is a highly important detail when determining negligence simply by the scales themselves. All that information about scales during the time period really helped me understand why it was basically ignored during the case.
@@xanderliptak They also are so much heavier than a human that it takes some serious effort to push them over if you are trying to do so intentionally and don't tumble at the slightest bump. Of course, this is in part to protect against the machine being bumped in a deliberate attempt to disrupt the mechanism as well as to avoid being sued for being irresponsible.
Eyewitness report said the scale was blown to pieces, bolted in or not you cant stop that.
Upon hearing that he became a supreme court justice in that era I felt pretty confident predicting that the court sided with the company whatever other considerations might exist
Prediction: The railraod is not at fault.
Reasoning: Someone who goes on to political influence and the supreme court is unlikely to have ruled and set precedence against businesses in a close case like this.
Actual culpability: The railroad should have maintained its train not to be dragging sparks and not left an unsecured scale on the platform where people are. Both of which are reasonable to foresee could cause harm even if it is not reasonable to foresee this obscure form of harm that they caused.
Sane world: No one would have to be sued because she would automatically have been provided care and financial support by a social safety net, instead of being forced to have multiple courts spend multiple days and a great many work hours of expert intelligent people, trying to resolve an issue better debated in a philosophy classroom.
A very well thought out and expressed opinion. I agree with you, though my unfortunately strong sense of justice wants to scream "NO! The railroad IS liable! They could have secured the scale, maintained their train and tracks and instructed employees to not push customers - especially those carrying unsecured boxes with unknown contents".
I'm so tired of corporations being able to buy out courts and media organizations, employing lobbying groups and buying politicians, framing all laws and arguments against the citizens, in favor of the 400 wealthiest families in the country.
It seems off or at least unfortunate that the jury's opinion which is intended to represent the people, is undermined by a single official. What a jury rules affects them as citizens but the corporation is made up of those same citizens that have jobs and realize they will be held liable for their own conduct while working. So it seems to be a better representation of justice rather than ignoring the jury in favor of a very political position that we all know can be affected by the economy of politics.
HAHAHAH! Sane world. Yeah, well, while we're dreaming, I want a holodeck and a replicator and I want people to give a damn about each other and I want everyone to be intelligent... And let's see, I want us to have the cure to cancer, and to defeat the borg, and I want to be close friends with Captain Picard and his legendary crew.
@@manictiger Oh ok, I'll just go tell all the other countries that have Medicare for all that they are wrong and that it's fantasy despite them implementing it
@@Storm-jn5ct
With 20% lower GDP per capita than us, you idiot. Us in a recession is a golden age to them. Your middle class is equivalent to our lower class.
"When are you responsible for an accident?"
Never, and I'll admit to nothing
This kid is going places
tabbris
Political office with this attitude xD
My (hu)man!
Welp, I think I know who the next CEO of Apple's going to be.
@@Ostentatiousnessness hey kid there's no shame on going into public office. You could do a lot worse, you could be a lawyer!
I’m a law student from India doing my freshman year, this video single helped me a lot in understanding the particular case. Glad to have stumbled across your channel.
Hm, I feel this case was argued about the wrong element of the accident.
Idc what's in the box, or what happened to cause the accident. The fact is that it did happen, and the Mrs was injured.
I would have argued negligence that the scale was not bolted to the platform. That is the railroads property, therefore, they should have taken precautions against it's falling and crushing a human being.
I feel like the real negligence is in not bolting down a scale so heavy that it could injure someone if it was knocked over. Had Her team argued that, I think she may have won.
its weight makes it arguable that someone would have to hit it with sufficient force to knock it over. to the point where it would be absurd that it would fall over unless someone forcefully struck it. (imagine a vending machine, it can kill but unless one puts enough force on it it's pretty absurd to think it would fall over even if it isn't bolted down)
How do we know they didn’t argue that and the thing was bolted down....
Edit: just found on the wiki that a witness described that the scale was “blown to pieces”. So even bolted down would not necessarily prevent that
Or scenario C:
So there I am, right, sleeping on the floor in peace, minding my lonely old business when some jerk starts pound on the door threatening to brake legs and whatnot. Then this other dude with untied boot laces just freaking grabs me! He grabs me and takes me out to the fire escape! Can you believe it!? Then like down down and we're running now past the butcher and the baker and the candlestick maker all the way to the train station. Dude! He stops and I all like, "So you gonna tell what this is all about, or..." Nope. He holds me tighter and just starts with me running again like a mad person, no explanation. Some kindly conductor on the platform realizes my plight and pushes the guy to try and stop this kidnapping. So guess what happens next? The bum throws me under the train! Literally. Not figuratively. Well by now I've had enough. My patience has straight up ended. And I'm a cool guy, but every box has its limit you know? So I explode in a firery rage. People were hurt and whatever but I wasn't liable, of course. Crazy morning though, man. Crazy.
Standing ovation. I love your content. This is a great and well understood story. ( bows deeply and most respectfully to you). Thank You.
The Long Island Rail Road is 100% responsible based on the testimony and facts submitted. Is is reasonable for passengers to expect that a safe environment would be maintained for them in the waiting area (Long Island Rail Road's Property) and they did NOT provide this when:
A) They allowed the man to run to the platform holding a package
B) Did NOT try to stop him but gave him a push from behind to help him.
If The man fell on the tracks and was injured or bumped into another passenger and the same thing happened they would be liable. No matter what was in the box, (It could have been cotton candy, makes no difference.) their action of the "push" was part of a chain of events that led up to an injury, hence, they are on the hook. The Long Island Rail Road Company is liable for the damages and should have been found guilty.
And they didn't secure heavy equipment in any way. There didn't need to be a firework induced panic to knock that scale over and injure someone.
Lots of irresponsibility on the railroad's part.
You're considering this case with a very modern idea of the duty of care companies have to their customers. The jump onto the train at the last minute was not out of the ordinary at the time, as was people rushing to get their trains with packages. Why would the train company at that time be worried about a man running onto the platform with a package?
For the railway service at this time, none of their actions are out of the ordinary.
@@Richard_Nickerson You can't know that. In fact I believe that was probably an avenue of discussion while the case was being formed. If it was reasonably found that the scale needed out of the ordinary force to topple it (which the force from a firework would be as well as, I would reckon, someone running into it at full tilt) then I do not see how the railroad company could be seen to be at fault.
For this line of reasoning you would have to prove that the scale was dangerously designed.
The negligence of the rail station was in the fact that they did not appropriately secure the heavy scales to the platform to prevent the possibility of the scale somehow tipping and falling on customers or railway staff.
15:15 Paused to guess... I feel like today the railroad would be liable. Interesting to note, to this point in the video we haven't discussed fastening down the scale. Something like that is clearly going to have a high centre of gravity. If it's heavy enough to do damage to a person, and can be knocked over in either manner described, it needs to be anchored down, or the operator is negligent.
I don't know about in 1928 though...
I remember this case from my torts class when I was in school. I enjoy watching these. I look forward to more. Do you take requests?
The narration and illustrations wow!
Ladies and Gentlemen, This Court has reached a Verdict. In the case of Helen Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Inc., It is the opinion of this court that the Long Island Railroad is liable for the damages of Mrs. Palsgraf. It would be foreseeable that the scale could topple over, and as such, the Long Island Railroad is hereby to award the Plaintiff the cost of the Medical Fees, as well as a further $25,000 US. *Gavel on Sound Block*
Can you think like a future Supreme Court Justice?
Me: "I like beer"
_Angry sniff into microphone_
"I like beer"
_cries into calendar_
I'm not drunk, you're drunk, Senator
Best comment.
Can you think like a future Supreme Court Justice?
Me: “ who cares? Politicians are pigs everyone of them.”
This new series is the best. I love hearing the cases presented in this manner
You could say that Cardoza's approach has been scaled down in recent years.
I'll see myself out
As someone said: "I feel like the negligence would be in the fact that such a huge heavy scale was not properly secured to the ground." Also, if fireworks could legally be transported in that box, pushing the guy with the box should not happen.
I agree with what many other people wrote here-- it was a mistake for the lawyers to focus on the train employee's actions and the box of fireworks. Sure-- the box of fireworks was the exciting thing, but the more important matter was that there was a large and dangerous object like the scale that could and would fall and crush someone if it were crashed into by another passenger. And that push may have been caused by the panic of the fireworks, but it could have just as easily happened if the platform had been overcrowded. The cause of the panic should not have been the focus, but rather the negligence was placing a large objects that would fall and kill someone if there was a panic when some pretty simple precautions could have been taken to prevent that.
I love these. Great job.
I say the railroad is negligent, the train has been poorly maintained and the employee for pushing him on to train
It's a dramatization, no information about the incident is available beyond that "there was an explosion".
I forgot that part so there's three levels of negligence on the railroad.
axon of the employee, disrepair the railroad, security of the scale
You can't hold the railroad negligent for the poorly maintained train or the pushing because those circumstances couldn't foreseeably lead to that woman's injury. Even if those circumstances on their own can lead to a foreseeably injury, it doesn't make them negligent to an wildly unsuspecting event.
Example: What if you washed your car and a person walking nearby tripped and discharged his gun, killing your neighbor a block away? Yes, leaving soaping water on the sidewalk without a warning is careless and could foreseen to lead to an injury to people walking by. But in no way could a reasonable person foreseen that leading to a gun being discharged and killing someone far away.
@@Murf181 If the train crashes because it was poorly maintained they (the train company) would be held responsible, so anything that causes injury that could be prevented with maintenance is negligence and therefor their fault. Your argument is a straw man, it has nothing to do with what happened.
The heavy scale is what caused injury and it was placed on the platform before any of these events occured. So whoever owned the coin operated scale should of been held responsible for the injuries because they didn't fasten it properly to prevent said injury.
@@Murf181 also in your scenario the person walking with a loaded firearm with one in the chamber would undoubtedly be held responsible for his firearm being discharged.
“Put on your black robe and gavel...”
Me: I knew buying a black robe and gavel was a good idea!
This series is very interesting. I know it takes extra time but I hope you keep it up.
15:20 Laws aside, I think ethically the company should pay for damages created by their inter pride upon law-abiding customers. I feel like denying costumers the insurance they might need could result in bad PR for the company.
If they set that precedent, where does it end?
What if there's a mass shooting? Should they pay for *those* damages?
@@wessltov It doesn't end. People have sued over cooking their own pets in a microwave.
PR only matters for companies that don't have a monopoly on a good or service. Railroad company doesnt have to care what you think because theyre the only people you can use. It's why so many companies now dont give two shits what you think about their business practices.
Crash course: the only PR large companies were running was that if you want paid vacation, disability benefits, paid sick leave, and the ability to strike, you're a damn commie, and your neighbor better report you.
@@akosbarati2239 Dark stuff to look back on all the history of labor movements. And of course it all gets glossed over in school that the US gov literally sent the army to gun down civilians solely because a large company didn't want to pay them more but still wanted to force them to work. God bless the United States amiright?
negligence is letting passengers jump onto an already moving train, having the train in such disrepair where pieces of metal are falling off. and lastly a heavy scale that is not secured to the ground ..so much that it can be toppled over by single person.
Great video! I love your channel's normal content bit this is definitely something you should continue
I'm a new fan (and a photographer)
U'r light work has stepped up so much comparing this to current videos.
My compliments to the gaffer =D
I hear Archer has a new cover as an attorney. "Zone of Danger" lol
I'm going for Scenario A because Scenario B doesn't make sense, as gunpowder fireworks can't explode on their own, they need an ignition source. Unless there was a shock-sensitive explosive or a source of ignition inside the box, Scenario B is highly improbable. Personally, I'd say the station was negligent for not securing the scale. If one passenger or fireworks can topple it, it's not properly secured!
It seems to me the better legal strategy to prove negligence would have been to attack the lack of security that lead to an explosive device on the platform, as opposed to someone who arguably was just doing their job.
1:20 That was a Simpsons joke.
Bart wanted to reincarnate into a butterfly to instigate crimes.
Great art work, solid voice actor performances, genius editing and a compelling story. Amazing job! 👍
The Long Island Railroad is responsible.
Evidence: I grew up on Long Island.
It doesn't matter what the passenger did, the station owner is responsible for the scale not being secured. It should not have fallen that easily.
A real point of negligence that nobody is bringing up.
A man is carrying an unmarked box, ask to see the box before letting him into the station
The concept of “no signage or other indication” in reference to the box seems mere conjecture- the box would’ve been clearly destroyed in the incident, the original owner was missing after the incident, AND the angle of the employee’s Point of View of the passenger’s box (should the court’s depicted diagram be accurate) would not have allowed a decent view of said box, thus providing no way to identify WHAT at all would have been within the arms of such a passenger, none the less any signage in a readable and coherent matter. This, paired with an unsecured heavy object located in an open and heavily populated area (which is so populated frequently and with much movement) points toward the Railroad being accountable not only for their employee’s actions in regard to the damage to a passenger’s luggage, said damage causing a disaster and public endangerment, paired with the ultimate damages resulting (injured passengers included)
Also, there is the question of what if any regulations the railroad's conditions of carriage placed on the transport or labelling requirements for dangerous goods. They have the authority to determine what can be carried on their services and under what conditions if the passenger violated those conditions that is one thing but if the conditions did not prohibit carrying unlabelled containers of fireworks then relying on the lack of labelling is unreasonable.
It is obvious that this is an expensive production. I really hope that all that hard work is rewarded.
I'm shocked that the appeal wasn't dismissed instantly. I reckon someone got a brown envelope at some point.
Must have been a hell of an explosion for that scale to be blown any distance at all. Was there no record of damage to other people or property from the explosion alone? Great video btw. Supreme quality.
In the context of the case itself, I overall side with the Long Island Railroad Company. There were indeed just too many random variables for Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries to be foreseeable. The employee would have had to at least suspect that Harry's box was dangerous, that helping him aboard would knock the box out of his hands, and that the box had a chance of exploding and causing injuries or deaths to employees and passengers there. Now, I know this was 1924 and working conditions weren't as regulated then (and we have the reverse now, where many of them are too regulated), but, if a piece of metal underneath the train was loose and causing sparking, that was at least a fire hazard if not that and worse. Also, what was that huge scale doing on the boarding platform instead of in the waiting/sitting area, where people could, you know, weigh themselves and their packages? Unless if was for weighing train cargo or equipment? Just how heavy was it? People comment that it should have been bolted down, but vending machines and other common heavy equipment usually aren't bolted down yet there are a few dumb people each year who die by trying to tip them over, and an explosion could certainly tip one over. Weird all around, but yeah, I'm gonna have to say I agree with the railroad company's advocate here.
This is not just an important case in American law for torts but we are also still taught it in New Zealand. I have just covered this case in my torts lecture.
I'm mad. This should have been taught in high school
I honestly cannon see why, of all the things not taught in high school, this specific legal case from almost 100 years ago, making use of outdated logic and with such a decidedly controversial outcome, makes you especially mad.
You mean when ppl study law.
It is so stupid, that they didn't instead turn their attention to the negligance, of putting up a heavy scale, that can be easily knocked over by another person running into it in a mass panic. That is negligance.
It is unnerving about the American justice system how many appeals it takes to rule that sometimes an accident is just an accident: no intent of wrongdoing, no reasonable evidence of foreseeable negligence.
Oh, I'm guessing the court ruled in favor of the company because this series wouldn't cover a case whose verdict wasn't unintuitive or ethically wrong.
these videos are the best part of this channel
Well you just made my daily briefing for Torts much easier today.
To everyone who says why they didn't question the scale wasn't secured to the ground, are you kidding me? First, perhaps it was normal at the time for such a scale to not be secured to the ground. Thus, it cannot be the basis of a lawsuit. Second, this would be like asking why refrigerators at the mall isn't secured to the ground.
I 100% used this for my 1L Torts class to make sure I had a good brief!
wow, been watching your content for a bit now (love it!) but this video somehow missed me. I love the tone and presentation of these kinds of videos. Hope to see more of them going into 2021!
Couldn't it also be argued that while the incident of fireworks exploding on the platform itself may not have been foreseeable, a great many other things could have cause a commotion on the platform such as an incident with the train or violence between passengers awaiting the train, which would have caused the clock to be struck or toppled, as it was not secured to the ground, and that it was heavy enough that when toppled, could cause serious injury. That alone is negligent, and the focus on the bizarre acts that preceded it are meaningless. If the defendant firmly argues that the fireworks, and not a passenger toppled the clock, then they must also accept that a passenger COULD have, as more force could be generated by a passenger on the clock than a firework can generate, and regardless, they should have predicted that a large, heavy clock, unsecured to the ground in an area of heavy traffic, is an imminent danger to their patrons.
Not only should the scale been secured somehow, but pushing a passenger onto the train is extremely unsafe in general. What if the push caused the passenger to fall, injuring him? Extremely frustrating case.
Either Harry was carrying a box of hand grenades/the guy who ran into the scale was Captain America, or that scale was a deathtrap. I wonder if it weighed at all on the future Justice's mind that his ruling actually *punished* a woman who already been through this much.
The scenarios DO matter though. If it was scenario A, making a case for negligence would be much easier: the unkept maintenance of their machinery, machinery paying customers are expected to stand beside and even into, caused dangerous sparks.
This format is awesome
I love these videos. I wonder how many people know these are the actual cases studied in law school.
BTW Eagle, ever hear of The Paper Chase?
You should do a series where you see everything A cartoon character has done throughout their series and point out every crime they commit and their sentence
I feel old watching the opening of these videos, Are You Afraid of the Dark? always comes to mind because of your opening.
I love these true crime videos you do - thank you!!!
Forget the box, couldn't it be negligent for the railroad company to have such a heavy object so unsecured that it can be knocked over by a man running in to it? It's not unforeseeable that it could be knocked over if not secured by someone rushing, or someone losing their footing. I'm no lawyer and I'm not saying it would work but surely there is less degrees of separation from her injury and the companies decisions then the case they argued.
What they conveniently forgot was. Was the heavy scale nailed down? It wouldn’t be unforseeable to knock over a scale like that. wouldn’t be unreasonable. And that push was hard. So who wouldn’t drop a box like that? Also they were working with broken equipment if they wanted to prove that they weren’t negligent they should’ve checked the equipment
This format did feel a little out of place from your normal videos, but I really like it and others in this format are certainly welcome and encouraged!
This is very well presented! If not the scale, I'd say the issue with the caboose was rather negligent.
I just heard a firework outside, have I entered the LegalEagle-O verse
Besides from the brass scale not being secured adequately to the ground, as many people have already pointed out, isn't the fact that there was no process through which to check whether passengers are carrying EXPLOSIVES on to the train without the proper security measures also considered negligence? I feel like it should at least be a consideration in this case.
I think which initial scenario actually happened is crucial to this issue. While I would argue that a reasonable person would not have anticipated an unlabeled box being hazardous, if a human being running into the scale caused the fall I would argue that a reasonable person should anticipate the risk of said scale falling and take measures to prevent it.
I hate to be 'that guy' but, as it's a Long Island Railroad Passenger Train in the 1920s, the spark wouldn't have been hanging equipment on the caboose, as the train wouldn't have had one.
Rather, it would be that the box fell between the track and power rail from which the electric train drew power. The spark would be generated by electricity arcing between the pick-up shoe on the brake coach of the train and the power rail.
--
No comment on the legalities side, other then to sincerely thank-you for sharing this fascinating story along with all of the others on your channel! Keep up the great work and all the best!
Objection! Calling him "Hot Mess Harry" establishes negative character.
he brought fireworks to a train station and dodged rent for 3 months
These are so entertaining. Please create more of these!
I’m curious about how realistic that back and forth between the lawyers is. I wouldn’t want to be that judge.
The negligence is that the scale wasn't screwed to the ground.
I'm honestly shocked the argument for negligence was made for the push, and not for the scale! There are arguments about the push, as we saw, but heavy machinery such as the scale SHOULD have been very securely tied down.
Happy to see that you didn't dislike Ace Attorney that much
We're going through this as a single incident of responsibility, instead of the sequence of individual events that have their own cause and responsibility. The package being dropped, the fireworks going off, and the scale tipping over.
It is reasonably foreseeable for a harsh shove to result in a passenger dropping a heavy and cumbersome package, and the station worker is probably responsible for the destruction of the package and it's contents.
The fireworks were unsafely packaged, and handled, not to mention unmarked. Any damage that happens as a result of the package getting damaged, and the fireworks going off are probably the responsibility of the passenger. If the woman was hurt by the explosion, it would not be the responsibility of the railroad.
As many others have mentioned, the woman was not hurt by the explosion, but by the scale tipping over. The scale belonged to the railroad, and is the responsibility of the railroad. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone might walk or run into the scale, and if it tipped as the result of that happening, damages would be their responsibility. It depends on how much force it would be reasonable to expect it to withstand.
The railroad is liable for the damages to the dropped package, and it's contents. The passenger is liable for the damages caused by the fireworks going off. The railroad is liable for damages caused by the scale tipping over, assuming the force it took to tip it could be reasonably expected.
That is my layperson opinion of the case, at any rate.
What a tragedy and a travesty of justice. If anything, it set a precedent for that...
Such a heavy scale should've been seen as an inherently dangerous object. It's a reasonable potential circumstance something could eventually knock it over in such a busy crowded area. The station owed some duty of protection to the public or taken some steps of safety against it happening. Her lawyer should've argued how the extent of her injuries proves just how much their negligence cost someone.
Just catching up with these stories. Absolutely love them! 😁😁
Learned about this case in my business law class last semester as an introduction to torts iirc
I think this was just a microcosm of unlikely and unfortunate events that compounded on each other simultaneously in the most tragic way. Not reasonably accounted for without the benefit of hindsight.
This trial is the perfect example of why we need a social system that financially provides for those who cannot provide for themselves.
I believe no one is really at fault, but the mother did not deserve to live in misery and debts the rest of her life.
I'm going to say the court ruled that the railroad was not responsible. Although they may have contributed to a factor along the way, I'm guessing there were too many factors between the push and the scale tipping over.
Smort
There's a terrible inconsistency in the defense's argument, if that recreation of their argument is verbatim. They argued both that the explosion was too far from her yet close enough to topple the object that ultimately crushed her. They presented both possibilities as one. That plus what most people have stated: it was negligence that the object wasn't properly secure to begin with. The fireworks didn't hurt her, the scale did.