Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad: Who Is Liable for an Unforeseeable Injury?

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) — full audio case brief. No screen needed: press play and learn on your commute, at the gym, or while getting things done. The landmark New York Court of Appeals case on negligence and the scope of liability. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Judge Cardozo, concludes that a defendant is only responsible for injuries that are a foreseeable result of their actions toward a specific person. Because the railroad guards could not have known the package contained fireworks or that their actions would harm someone standing far away, the court found they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. The dissenting opinion by Judge Andrews argues for a broader interpretation of proximate cause, suggesting that anyone who acts negligently should be held accountable for the natural consequences of that behavior, regardless of foreseeability. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, establishing the fundamental principle that legal wrong must be defined by the relationship between the parties involved. Made for law students, bar preppers, and busy professionals who turn downtime into study time. Subscribe for more listen-and-learn case briefs. ▶ Related Civil Procedure course:    / @owlorder   Subscribe for plain-English case files and exam-ready legal logic.