Business Law Analysis - Case Study Example

Business law: Case analysis; Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co The judiciary interprets and enforces laws, in adjudicating disputes, and the role follows a systematic approach of identifying applicable rules of law that are then interpreted and are applied to a case. The case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. involved bodily harm and this discussion analyses it. FactMrs. Palsgraf, the plaintiff, was at a rail station, and while she was on the platform, a man who was carrying a package ran to board a departing plane on another side of the platform.

The man lost balance and two guards who were near him attempted to help him. A guard who was on the platform tried pushing the passenger into the train, while another guard, who was in the train, tried grabbing the passenger. The man had a package, which had fireworks, and dropped in the process of boarding the train and exploded. It was however not easy to know the package’s content and upon explosion, scales on the other side of the rail’s platform fell, causing injury to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the guards for negligence that the trial court upheld and the appellate court affirmed, forcing the rail company to appeal at the New York Court of Appeal (New York Court of Appeal 1). IssueFacts of the case suggest negligence and establish the following issues for determination.What is the criterion for determining owed duty of care?To which parties in an individual’s environment does the individual owe the duty of care?RuleDoctrines of causation, proximate cause, and forceability apply to negligence.

Despite existence of duty of care, whose breach may amount to harm, these doctrines determines existence of negligent liability. Negligence is upheld if suffered harm would not have happened, had the defendant not assumed his or her action, and a strong connection also ought to exist between a defendant’s act and the suffered harm (Roger and Miller 305, 306). Under foreseeability doctrine, liability arises if, from an ordinary man’s perspective, a risk is likely to occur, and not just a mere possibility of occurrence, and such was a court decision in the case of Fardon v.

Harcourt-Rivington. The same decision was held in the case of Bolton v. Stone where even possibility of occurrence, unless occurrence is possible, from a realistic perspective, does not induce negligence liability (Mandaraka-Sheppard 609). ApplicationFacts of the case undermines causation because the passenger’s suffered instability could have caused the falling of the package, independently, into the harm that the plaintiff suffered, and this further transcends to undermine proximate cause.

The fact that the guards could not identify content of the package, to foresee possible impacts of their actions also undermines negligence on from the guards. Even if the content could be identified, possible effects on the other side f the platform could not be anticipated. Duty of care could therefore be owed to the passenger of any other party at the point of explosion had the guards been aware of the package’s content, but not to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decisions.

Conclusion The court’s decision against the previous decisions is consistent with legal provisions for determining owed duty of care and people to whom such duty is owed. Works citedMandaraka-Sheppard, Aleka. Modern maritime law and risk management. New York, NY: CRC Press, 2014. Print. New York Court of Appeal. “Helen Palsgraf, respondent v The Long Island Railroad Company, Appelant.” New York Court of Appeal. N.d. Web. October 15, 2014. < http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/palsgraf_lirr.htm >.Roger, Frank and Miller, Roger.

The legal environment of business: Text and cases- Ethical, regulatory, global, and e-commerce. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.