Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company
This text of 164 N.E. 564 (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Motion for reargument.
If we assume that the plaintiff was nearer the scene of the explosion than the prevailing opinion would suggest, she was not so near that injury from a falling package, not known to contain explosives, would be within the range of reasonable prevision.
The motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Lehman and Kellogg, JJ., concur; Crane, Andrews and O’Brien, JJ., concur in result.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
164 N.E. 564, 249 N.Y. 511, 59 A.L.R. 1263, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palsgraf-v-long-island-railroad-company-ny-1928.