NAME: Nicholas Gavalas

DATE:4/18/2019
COURSE: BUL2241
ASSIGNMENT: chapter 8/ intro to constitutional law
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: to teach us who is responsible under dangerous circumstances.

Cases:
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.:

Facts: Palsgraf suffered injury on railroad station platform: two men ran to catch departing train – one
made it safely aboard moving car, second started to fall but was aided by guard aboard reaching to grab
him and guard on platform pushing from behind, knocked small package of fireworks from his arm: fell
onto rails/exploded, shock from explosion knocked over scale on other end of platform – landed on
Palsgraf, brought action against Long Island Railroad Co. to recover for injuries sustained, railroad
appealed from trial
Courts Response: Appellate courts’ decisions in favor of Palsgraf, judgement for Palsgraf reversed
Legal concept: But-for test, defendant’s conduct is factual cause of harm when harm would not have
occurred absent the conduct

How Is It Applied: negligence not actionable unless involving invasion of legally protected interest or
violation of a right: must be shown that the charged party owed duty to complaining
individual/observance of which would have averted/avoided injury
Reason: Palsgraf cannot recover because railroad was not negligent as to her: harm to her was
unforeseeable, cannot recover for injuries sustained due to railroad agents’ negligence to man they
assisted, even if defendant’s negligent conduct caused harm to plaintiff: defendant is not liable if
defendant could not have foreseen injuring the plaintiff/class of persons to which plaintiff belonged

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.:

Facts: Ice jam in Buffalo River disintegrated upstream and sent large pieces of ice downstream during
winter months, ice began to pile up against Kinsman’s Shiras (boat moored at docks on river) that was
without power/manned by only by one shipman: ship broke loose when negligently constructed
“deadman” (one Continental mooring cable was attached) pulled out of ground, ship began downstream
stern first: knocked another ship loose from its mooring upon collision, both ships moved downstream
toward Michigan Avenue Bridge: crew manning bridge had been notified in time to avoid collision but
shift changeover lead to failure to raise bridge, both ships crashed into bridge/wedged against bank of
river: dammed flow of river/flooded installations going 3 miles upstream, injured parties brought action
for damages against Kinsmen, Continental and Buffalo
Courts Response: Trial court found 3 defendants liable, they appealed from that decree
Legal concept: Superseding cause: intervening event that occurs after the defendant’s negligent
conduct/relieves them of liability

How Is It Applied: Ship insecurely moored in fast-flowing river is known danger to owners of all
ships/structures downstream/persons upon them: Kinsmen/Continental owed duty of care to all within
foreseeable reach of ships’ destructive path, city liable for negligent failure to prevent those who
foreseeably could have been injured in collision
Reason: damage resulted from same physical forces whose existence required exercise of greater care
than displayed/was same general/foreseeable type, unforeseeability of exact circumstances and results
will not limit liability where persons injured/general nature of damage done were foreseeable

Klein v. Pyrodyne Corporation:

Facts: Pyrodyne Corp. contracted to conduct fireworks display for fairgrounds on July 4, during which a
5” mortar was knocked horizontally/shell inside ignited/discharged parallel to the earth/exploding near
crowd of onlookers 500 ft. away, Danny/Marion Klein sustained injuries by explosion: Danny suffered
facial burns/serious injuries to his eyes, parties provided conflicting explanations for improper discharge:
evidence exploded – no means of proving causation, Kleins brought suit against corp. under theory of
strict liability for participating in abnormally dangerous activity
Courts Response: Judgement for Kleins, court holds that conducting public fireworks displays is
abnormally dangerous activity justifying strict liability
Legal concept: Express assumption of the risk, plaintiff’s express consent to encounter a known danger

How Is It Applied: Relatively few persons conduct public fireworks displays, fairgrounds were an
appropriate place for fireworks/we as a society: value fireworks on Fourth of July more than we fear the
risks, inability to entirely eliminate high risk inherent in setting off powerful explosives [fireworks] near
crowds
Reason: Courts impose strict liability for harm resulting from abnormally dangerous activity, as
determined in light of place, time and manner in which the activity was conducted, Restatement of Torts
provides 6 factors that courts are to consider determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous:
4 of 6 factors present in this case

Ryan v. Friesenhahn:

Facts: Todd Friesenhahn held “open invitation” party at parents’ home that encouraged guests to “bring
your own bottle”, Sabrina Ryan attended party and then became intoxicated: died in car accident after
leaving party, her parents sued Friesenhahns for negligence: alleging that they were aware of underage
drinking at party and of Sabrina’s condition upon leaving
Courts Response: Trial court granted summary judgement for Friesenhahns, judgement was reversed by
Texas Supreme Court
Legal concept: Violation of statute, if the statute applies, the violation is negligence per se in most states
How Is It Applied: assuming Friesenhahns were aware of minors possessing/consuming alcohol on their
property and specifically allowed Sabrina to become intoxicated: under Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code –
a violation of statute constitutes negligence per se if injured party is a member of class under protection
by statute, Sabrina was member of said protected class
Reason: serving minors any amount of alcohol is a criminal offense, a violation of statue constitutes
negligence per se if injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute

Soldano v. O’Daniels:

Facts: Darrell Soldano (plaintiff’s father) shot and killed in public establishment, defendant
owns/operates adjacent establishment, patron of establishment shooting occurred in went to
defendant’s establishment informing bartender of threat to man in the other establishment: requested
that the bartender make call or if patron could use establishment’s phone to call police, bartender
refused both requests, plaintiff alleges actions of defendant’s staff at establishment breached the legal
duty the establishment owed to decedent, defendant maintains there was no legal obligation to take
any action: no duty was owed
Courts Response: Trial court dismissed case on defendant’s motion for summary judgement, appellate
court reversed/remanded case for trial, determined to reexamine common law rule of nonliability of
nonfeasance in special circumstances of case, concluding employee (of defendant) displayed conduct of
disregard for human life in that the burden on the defendant to respond was minimal: affirmative duty
on defendant’s part to respond/failure to do so resulted in legal breach of duty of care
Legal concept: Duty to act, person is under duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for
safety of other persons and property, except in special circumstances where no aid is required to
another in peril

How Is It Applied: use of telephone in public portion of a business open to the public, during business
hours, should not be refused for a legitimate emergency call, duty of this case does not require one to
go to the aid of another yet duty is to not hinder others who are trying to help
Reason: Imposing such a duty to third parties requires an examination and balancing of foreseeability of
harm/certainty that the plaintiff would suffer injury/the connection between defendant’s conduct and
the injury/moral blame attached to defendant’s conduct/the prevention of future harm/extent of the
burden to the defendant/consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care/and the
availability/cost/and prevalence of insurance for the particular risk involved