Connection lost
Server error
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad 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: Railroad employees negligently pushed a passenger onto a moving train, causing him to drop a package of fireworks. The resulting explosion injured another passenger on the platform. The court held the railroad liable, finding its negligence was the direct cause of the injury, regardless of foreseeability.
Legal Significance: This intermediate appellate decision exemplifies the direct causation theory of proximate cause, holding a tortfeasor liable for all direct consequences of a negligent act, even if the specific harm or its mechanism was unforeseeable. This approach was famously later rejected by the Court of Appeals.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad 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 at the defendant’s railroad station. As another train began to depart, two men ran to catch it. One man, carrying an unmarked package, attempted to board the moving car. Two of the defendant’s employees, a guard on the platform and a conductor on the train, assisted the man by pushing and pulling him aboard. In this process, the passenger’s package was dislodged, fell to the tracks, and exploded. The package contained fireworks, a fact unknown to the defendant’s employees. The force of the explosion caused a large set of scales located on the platform to topple over, striking and injuring the plaintiff. The jury found that the defendant’s employees were negligent in their actions assisting the passenger. The defendant appealed, arguing its employees’ actions were not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a defendant whose negligent act is a direct cause of a plaintiff’s injuries liable for those injuries, even if the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the contents of the package or the specific manner in which the harm would occur?
Yes. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the 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 reprehe
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
Is a defendant whose negligent act is a direct cause of a plaintiff’s injuries liable for those injuries, even if the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the contents of the package or the specific manner in which the harm would occur?
Conclusion
This decision is a significant illustration of the direct-causation approach to proximate 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 exercitat
Legal Rule
A defendant is liable for the consequences of a negligent act if 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 conseq
Legal Analysis
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Seeger, focused on a direct causation 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A railroad is liable for injuries caused when its employees negligently