One of the most famous and foundational cases law students encounter in their study of tort law is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928). Though decided nearly a century ago, the case remains a cornerstone for understanding the limits of negligence and the principle of foreseeability. It is not just a story about a freak accident on a train platform—it is a classic illustration of proximate cause and the boundaries of legal responsibility.

The Facts

The facts of Palsgraf are almost as famous as the opinion itself. Helen Palsgraf was standing on a train platform operated by the Long Island Railroad. Nearby, two railroad employees attempted to help a man onto a departing train. In the process, the man dropped a package—unknown to anyone at the time, it contained fireworks. The package exploded, causing a scale at the other end of the platform to fall and injure Mrs. Palsgraf.

She sued the railroad for negligence.

The Legal Issue: Proximate Cause and Foreseeability

The core legal issue in Palsgraf is whether the railroad's conduct was the proximate cause of Palsgraf’s injury. The majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, held that the railroad was not liable because the harm to Palsgraf was not foreseeable. According to Cardozo:

“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.”

In essence, the court said that because the employees could not reasonably foresee that helping a man onto a train would cause an explosion that would injure someone far away, there was no duty owed to Mrs. Palsgraf—and therefore no negligence.

The Dissent: A Broader View of Causation

Judge Andrews dissented, arguing that duty should be owed to the public generally and that whether an act is a proximate cause of an injury should be a question of remoteness, not foreseeability alone. He advocated for a jury to decide whether the accident was within the chain of causation.

Why It’s Important in Law School

Palsgraf is valuable for several reasons:

• Clarifies Duty and Foreseeability: Cardozo's majority draws a clear boundary for negligence—without foreseeability, there is no duty. This is central to how negligence claims are evaluated.

• Teaches the Role of Proximate Cause: The case exemplifies how courts distinguish between actual cause (“but for” causation) and proximate cause (legal causation). Just because an act sets a chain in motion doesn’t always mean liability follows.

• Illustrates Competing Judicial Philosophies: The majority and dissent reflect two philosophies of tort law—formalism (Cardozo) vs. pragmatism (Andrews)—giving students a framework to analyze judicial reasoning and policy implications.

• Enduring Influence: Courts still cite Palsgraf when analyzing negligence and causation, and its principles remain embedded in modern tort doctrines.

Know the Laws with LegalFix

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. endures because it dramatizes the abstract legal concepts of duty, causation, and foreseeability in a compelling narrative. Law students study it not only to understand the elements of negligence but to appreciate the role of courts in drawing the boundaries of legal responsibility. It is a case where the outcome turns not on what happened, but on who the law is designed to protect.

Whether you want to understand what Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. means or are looking for more information on how our legal system works, LegalFix is your go-to source for free legal information. You can find helpful articles and use the free search and information tools to better understand the state and federal laws that affect you. Just visit LegalFix.com to find all this content — and check back often for more valuable legal products and services coming soon.