Personal Opinion on the Palsgraf Case - Essay Example

Therefore, Palsgraf brought forward a personal injury complaint against the Long Island Rail road that made an appeal to courts judgment that was in favour of the plaintiff. The ruling was avowed on the appeal, and the defendant appealed (Farlex, 2013). Therefore, to my opinion, the railroad guards were wrong in relation to the individual carrying the parcel but not in regards to Palsgraf who was standing at a far distance. Additionally, no one was aware that the packages had fireworks and that they could cause harm if they were to be dropped.

No one could also have thought that Palsgraf who was standing at a far zone was out of danger and that he could be harmed. On the other hand, an issue of negligence was also mentioned by Palsgraf as he tried to sue the guards involved in the incidence (4LawSchool, 2001). Personally, to spot the act of negligence, there should be a discovery that an obligation was first owed and contravened and that the damage could have been shunned in the case where the defendant was following that particular duty.

The course of the peril or rather the risk associated with the danger is the one which a rational person would have foreseen. On the other hand, even though the guard had taken the package and thrown it intentionally, it would have not caused a threat on Palsgraf safety looking at it from the appearance of the circumstance to a rational person. The liability of the Long Island Railroad towards an inadvertent action would have not been greater than it was especially on the case where the act was deliberate.

There is tendacy to argue that each and every individual owes to the world a duty of abstaining from the actions that may threaten the wellbeing of other people in an unreasonable manner. In the attempt to determine the approximate cause of the incidence, the court must have asked whether there was a natural or an incessant series between the effect and the cause. The court had the same pressure of not to argue whether the act was reasonably expected to cause injury to any individual (Manz, 2005).

Additionally, the court was expected to consider the fact that the greater the distance existing between the cause and effect in both space and time, the greater the probability that the other grounds intervene to cause an effect to the outcome. In this case there was no kind of remoteness in terms of time and space and therefore injury was meant to take place in some form. It is also to my view that the issue of proximate cause is just a practical politics, which is not founded on judgment. Proximate cause implies that due to expediency of the public strategy regarding to an uneven sense of impartiality, the law subjectively declines to hunt for a series of happenings beyond a given level (Lawnix, 2008).

The natural and the foreseeable outcomes of the negligent deeds influence the determination of deciding whether a given act can be termed as a proximate cause of the damages. It is paramount to adopt the principle that states that negligent behaviour that ends up in injury results into being a liability in the case where the actor had the chance to reasonably foresee that the behaviour could result to injury. In the Cardozo opinion, the court decided that the defendant’s guards could not have predicted the likelihood of the injury on Palsgraf and thus no duty to him was breached either.

The obligation to practice care is owed to everyone and thus the acts of carelessness will definitely put the actor to accountability to each and every individual who is approximately injured by the incidence. Whether the harm is