Connection lost
Server error
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A railroad guard’s act of helping a passenger caused a package of fireworks to explode, injuring a distant woman. The court found the railroad not liable, as the harm to the plaintiff was not a foreseeable result of the guard’s conduct.
Legal Significance: This case established the foundational principle that a duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs within a “zone of danger,” rather than to the world at large. It frames foreseeability as a core element of duty in negligence law.
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was standing on a platform of the defendant’s railroad after purchasing a ticket. A train began to depart, and two men ran to catch it. As the second man, who was carrying a small package wrapped in newspaper, attempted to board the moving car, he appeared unsteady. A guard on the train pulled him aboard while another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. This action caused the man to drop the package onto the rails. The package, which secretly contained fireworks, exploded upon impact. The shockwave from the explosion traveled down the platform and knocked over a set of heavy scales. The falling scales struck and injured the plaintiff, who was standing many feet away. The defendant’s employees had no knowledge of the package’s contents, and its appearance did not suggest any potential for an explosion.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff who suffers injury that was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent act?
No. The court reversed the lower courts’ judgments, holding that the defendant Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. E
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff who suffers injury that was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent act?
Conclusion
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. is a seminal case in American Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in r
Legal Rule
For a defendant's act to be considered negligent as to a particular Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehender
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Cardozo framed the central issue as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Negligence is relational; a defendant must breach a duty owed to