N12899722

Helen Palsgraf, Respondent v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant

ANDREWS, J. (dissenting)

Rule
If no hazard is apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at
least to outward seeming, with reference to a plainti , does not take to itself the quality of a
tort because it happened to be a wrong, though apparently not one involving the risk of
bodily insecurity, with reference to someone else. In every instance, before negligence can
be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the
individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury.
The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative.

Facts
Plaintiff was a ticket-buyer of the Long Island Railroad Company. Plaintiff was standing on
the platform when a passenger was trying to get on to a moving train. The passenger was
holding a package wrapped into newspapers. While the train was on move so a guard of the
defendant Long Island Railroad Company, helped him get into the train and an other guard of
the defendant was pushing him from the platform. The passenger lost his balance during the
activity and package fell onto the ground and came out to be a package of fireworks which
exploded and injured the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the defendant on the violation of his rights of
bodily security.

Question
Does the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff while the package was thrown a nearby rail
and injured the plaintiff.

Answer
Yes

Conclusion
The Judge affirmed the judgment with all the costs. Justice Andrews quoted Justice Holmes ,
“the measure of the defendant's duty in determining whether a wrong has been committed is
one thing, the measure of liability when a wrong has been committed is another.” Justice
Andrew argued, that everyone owes duty, not to a specific person but to the whole world, of
refrain from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others.
ff