248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)
Helen Palsgraf purchased a ticket from the Long Island Railroad Company and stood on the platform of its station awaiting a train bound for Rockaway Beach.1 A train stopped at the station, though it was destined for a different location.2 Two men hurried to board the moving train.3 One man successfully reached the platform of the car.4
The second man, who carried a package approximately fifteen inches long wrapped in newspaper, jumped aboard but appeared unsteady and at risk of falling.5 A guard on the car held the door open and reached forward to assist the second man, while another guard on the platform pushed him from behind.6 During this assistance, the package was dislodged and fell onto the railroad tracks.7
The package contained fireworks, although its appearance gave no indication of these contents.8 When the package fell, the fireworks exploded, and the resulting shock caused scales located at the opposite end of the platform to topple over.9 The falling scales struck Helen Palsgraf, resulting in her injuries.10
She subsequently initiated a lawsuit against the Long Island Railroad Company seeking damages for those injuries.11 The case proceeded to trial, where a judgment was entered in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed that judgment, after which the matter came before the Court of Appeals for review.12
Whether the railroad employees' assistance to a boarding passenger created a duty of care toward the plaintiff standing at a distance on the platform?13
Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right.14 The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative.15 The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.16
No. Helen Palsgraf purchased a ticket from the Long Island Railroad Company and stood on the platform of its station awaiting a train bound for Rockaway Beach.17 A train stopped at the station, though it was destined for a different location. Two men hurried to board the moving train. One man successfully reached the platform of the car.
The second man, who carried a package approximately fifteen inches long wrapped in newspaper, jumped aboard but appeared unsteady and at risk of falling. A guard on the car held the door open and reached forward to assist the second man, while another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. During this assistance, the package was dislodged and fell onto the railroad tracks. The package contained fireworks, although its appearance gave no indication of these contents.
When the package fell, the fireworks exploded, and the resulting shock caused scales located at the opposite end of the platform to topple over. The falling scales struck Helen Palsgraf, resulting in her injuries. She subsequently initiated a lawsuit against the Long Island Railroad Company seeking damages for those injuries. The case proceeded to trial, where a judgment was entered in her favor.
The Appellate Division affirmed that judgment, after which the matter came before the Court of Appeals for review. The conduct of the defendant’s guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away.18 Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed.19
The railroad employees' assistance did not create a duty of care toward the plaintiff standing at a distance on the platform.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Crane And O'brien, Jj.
Justice Andrews, dissenting, contends that every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others.21 Where there is the unreasonable act, and some right that may be affected there is negligence whether damage does or does not result to a particular person.22 The plaintiff's action is original and primary for a breach of duty to herself and not by derivation or succession from any right of the package owner.23
He diverges from the majority by rejecting a relational view of duty limited to those within the range of apparent apprehension and instead treats the act as wrongful to all who are in fact injured.24
Whether the dislodging of the package and resulting explosion constituted negligence in relation to the plaintiff?25
Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances.26 If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong with reference to some one else.27
No. The established facts establish that the package was covered by a newspaper and was of small size, about fifteen inches long.28 There was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents.29 The fireworks when they fell exploded.30 The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away.31
The scales struck the plaintiff. The conduct of the defendant’s guard was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff.32 Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right.
The dislodging of the package and resulting explosion did not constitute negligence in relation to the plaintiff.33
Whether the plaintiff's injuries from the falling scales were the proximate result of the employees' conduct?34
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us. The question of liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability. If there is no tort to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be recovered if there were a finding of a tort.35
No. Because there was no tort to the plaintiff, the question of proximate cause does not arise.36 The facts show the plaintiff was far away and no hazard was apparent.37 The consequences to be followed must first be rooted in a wrong.38 The conduct of the defendant’s guard was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff standing far away.39
Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed.
The plaintiff's injuries from the falling scales were not the proximate result of the employees' conduct because there was no duty or negligence owed to her.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Crane And O'brien, Jj.
Justice Andrews, dissenting, would hold that the injury was the proximate result of the negligence.41 The act was negligent and for its proximate consequences the defendant is liable.42 The explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.43
There was a natural and continuous sequence and direct connection.44 The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her.45 There was no remoteness in time, little in space.46
Given such an explosion it needed no great foresight to predict that the natural result would be to injure one on the platform at no greater distance from its scene than was the plaintiff.47