Week 4 assignment - Essay Example

Plaintiff’s case Plaintiff’s case Facts: This is one of the cases that seemed to have developed some difficulties at an upper stage due to lack of proper understanding. There were also some statements made by both the defendant and Plaintiff that were meant to set or judge the two. The fact that came up in this case was that Plaintiff was standing on the railroad platform of the defendant when one of the trains that was moving on the opposite direction to that of Plaintiff stopped. After the train stopped, two men were actually rushing tom board when one of them boarded successfully while the other happened to have slipped after losing his balance being that the train had started moving.

The young man who slipped was actually carrying a package that fell and causes some fireworks that seemed to have hurt Plaintiff. The package fell on the Platform where Plaintiff was standing and was actually estimated to have been fifteen inches of feet. It was due to the injuries caused by the package explosion that Plaintiff decided to sue or file a case.History: When the case was presented on the trial court, Plaintiff was actually found for by the court and the defendants were forced to appeal making the judgment to be affirmed by the appellate court.

Issue: Was Plaintiff’s injuries proximately caused by the railroad negligence?Ruling: No. The decision was actually reversed by one of the judges of the New York Court of Appeal named Andrew.Ruling/ Analysis: Negligence in a real life situation is believed not to be a tort until it leads to a wrongful act that tend to deprive or violate one of his or her rights (Furgeson et.al, 2008). It is therefore right to show the possibilities of the obvious danger if harm was not willfully done. Since Plaintiff’s harm did not happen willfully as per the defendant’s part, it was therefore right to prove that package drop, had the obvious prospect of danger(Furgeson et.al, 2008). Being that the package was wrapped and there was no more evidence to prove that it had explosives, no negligence was thrown away.

Negligence was not found and railroad had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s injuries. Judge Andrew actually opposed and started defining negligence. In his statement, he said that negligence is a comparative notion and everybody is to stay away from an act or substance that can intrude or interfere with the safety of others(Furgeson et.al, 2008).Summary: Actually, nothing was found in the situation to imply as the wrapped package could have dropped for anybody as this means that no one could have evaded such a situation.

Plaintiff’s injury was caused by the explosion and this act was invisible as no one was aware of the incidence. This is one of the reasons as to why Judge Andrew reversed the decision.Reason for choosing this topic: This is one of the cases seemed to have been very difficult as it was very difficult to analyse and understand the case. There were very many cases to blame and proper understanding of the situation was therefore to be enhanced. There are a lot of judgment knowledge to be learnt and criteria to be followed while dealing with a case where two parties are both found to blame for an incidence.

ReferenceFurgeson, J. R., Babcock, L., & Shane, P. M. (2008). Do a laws policy implications affect beliefs about its constitutionality? an experimental test. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 219-27.