#10 · 2026-08-16 · Case
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
The New York Court of Appeals held that the railroad employees' conduct was not negligent as to the distant plaintiff because the hidden danger made harm to her unforeseeable. Judge Andrews dissented, framing the issue more broadly in proximate-cause terms.
Rule to remember
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. held, in Cardozo's majority opinion, that negligence duty to this plaintiff did not arise from an unforeseeable danger concealed in another passenger's package.
Key elements and checks
- Railroad guards dislodged an apparently harmless package while aiding a passenger.
- Hidden fireworks exploded and a distant passenger was hurt by a falling scale.
- The majority limited duty to those within the reasonably foreseeable range of danger.
In the source’s words
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed”
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
The case is New York law and a foundational duty-versus-proximate-cause teaching example; jurisdictions vary in how they frame the issue.