NEGLIGENCE

Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. 248 NY 339(1928)

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/palsgraf_lirr.htm (February 24, 2019)

Palsgraf was standing on the East New York Long Island Rail Road station platform after buying a ticket. A train stopped at the station, and another man ran forward to catch it. When he attempted to board the train in haste, he dropped a package containing fireworks. As a result, Palsgraf was injured from the subsequent explosion and sought to hold the railroad liable for negligence.

The court held that under the foreseeability test, it was not reasonable to hold that the railroad’s alleged negligence was the cause of the passenger’s injuries. It concluded that a duty of care must be ascertained from the risk that can be reasonably foreseen. Long Island Railroad Company could not have reasonably foreseen that the package contained explosives and posed a threat to anyone. It was the explosion that was the proximate cause of the injury, and the railroad could not have reasonably expected such a disaster.

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

Rodriguez v City of New York 31 NY3d 312 (2018)

http://www.nycourts.gov/REPORTER/3dseries/2018/2018_02287.htm (February 24, 2019)

“This appeal requires us to answer a question that has perplexed courts for some time: Whether a plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, when, as here, defendant has arguably raised an issue of fact regarding plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Stated differently, to obtain partial summary judgment in a comparative negligence case, must plaintiffs establish the absence of their own comparative negligence. We hold that a plaintiff does not bear that burden.”

“Plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez was employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) as a garage utility worker. He was injured while “outfitting” sanitation trucks with tire chains and plows to enable them to clear the streets of snow and ice.”

“At the time of his accident, plaintiff was standing between the front of a parked Toyota Prius and a rack of tires outside of the garage bay while the driver began backing the sanitation truck into the garage. The guide, at some point, stood on the driver’s side of the sanitation truck while directing the driver in violation of established DOS safety practices. The sanitation truck began skidding and eventually crashed into the front of the parked Toyota Prius, propelling the car into plaintiff and pinning him up against the rack of tires. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital and ultimately had to undergo spinal fusion surgery, a course of lumbar epidural steroid injections, and extensive physical therapy. He is permanently disabled from working.”