> Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.
I then outweighed the barrel and I started down once more
I clung on tightly to the rope, and sped toward the ground --
And landed on the broken bricks a-lying all around.
I lay there groaning on the ground and thought I'd passed the worst
When the barrel hit the pulley wheel, and then the bottom burst
A shower of bricks came down on me, 'twas then I gave up hope
And lying there upon the ground, I let go the bloody rope.
[...]
I see a lot of extraneous detail (e.g. "bound for another place", "a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper"). The sentence "The fireworks when they fell exploded" is clunky.
It's also missing the critical detail of who she is suing. The point of the story is to explain how she got injured, but gives no idea who is actually involved. The guards? The other man who got on the train and vanished from the story? (Turns out it's the railroad company, who is not mentioned in the story at all.)
Wikipedia summarizes the relevant facts in one sentence:
Two men attempted to board the train before [the plaintiff's]; one (aided by railroad employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale on the platform to hit her.
Incidentally, can you set off fireworks just by dropping them? That sounds unlikely to me.
That said, I don't really see what is special about the quoted passage either. I have read many decisions and this seems pretty standard for a recounting of the basic facts.
I understand there is speculation that Cardozo downplayed a suspicion that these were some kind of domestic terrorists carrying actual explosives.
Palsgraf v. LIRR, it’s right there in the caption.
I'm looking at this exercise in exploring hypothetical situations as like throwing fuzz tests at the law, and using the results to correct the "code" (either legal code or how to interpret the common law, depending on how your juristiction functions). I can't say it's a bad approach for "engineering" a good system.
Because it can be a fuzzy concept, books and (non-criminal & non-constitutional) courses on law (at least in the US) will spend a lot of time on torts.
My brain always starts with the assumption that it's some sort of British pastry, and takes a minute to adjust.
> a rich, usually multilayered, cake that is filled with whipped cream, buttercreams, mousses, jams, or fruit
So you could be excused
wtf? I thought it was the entity/entities responsible for the accident?