Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company
164 N.E. 564, 249 N.Y. 511, 59 A.L.R. 1263, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 836
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
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, 164 N.E. 564, 249 N.Y. 511, 59 A.L.R. 1263, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 836 (N.Y. 1928).
164 N.E. 564 (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Martucci v. Tirro Construction Corp.
192 Misc. 2d 22 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
New York Telephone Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
99 A.D.2d 185 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Nodine v. Terpening Trucking Co.
64 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Hairston v. Broadwater
73 Misc. 2d 523 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Blunt v. Spears
92 S.E.2d 573 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)