Assignment of week 5

Assignment of 5th Week

Torts and Negligence

BUS 540 BUSINESS LAW FOR MANAGERS
Bishnu Dhamala
29th September, 2014

Assignment of week 5

INTRODUCTION
Negligence usually includes doing something that an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent
person would not do, or not doing something such a person would do considering the
circumstances, situation, and the knowledge of parties involved. There are three elements
that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent: The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff,
The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission,
The plaintiff suffered damage as a result, and the defendants negligent act caused
the plaintiffs injury.

Here in the case, Mrs. Palsgraf was standing on the train platform when a man carrying a
small package contained fireworks. The package was dislodged and exploded, hitting the
train tracks. The shock of the explosion caused the scales at the other end of the platform
to fall, striking and injuring Mrs. Palsgraf. The Court in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
Co. found that it was not foreseeable for Mrs. Palsgraf to sustain her injuries, thereby
denying her any monetary recovery.

Assignment of week 5

CASE ANALYSIS
As we know the law of negligence deals with the failure to exercise the care that a
reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. This area of law deals
with harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm. At the core of negligence is the
idea that people should exercise reasonable care when they conduct themselves in a
manner that prevents potential harm that is foreseeable. (Cheeseman, 2006). Businesses
should be liable for compensation if they: Owed a duty of care,
Breached this duty of care,
The plaintiff suffered injury, and
The defendants negligent act caused the plaintiffs injury.
Conduct of Xs guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a
wrong in its relation to Mrs. Palsgraf standing far away. Negligence is not actionable
unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. The
risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it
is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. Some acts, however, are
so dangerous ass to impose a duty of prevision not far from that of an insurer. Nothing in
the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper
would spread wreckage through the station. If the harm was not willful, P must show that
the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be
protected against the doing of it though the harm was unintended. It is not like other risk
of day to day business because it is unexpected event i.e. natural disaster or act of God.

Assignment of week 5

Though the business is not pay for this risk but the third party (fire makers) and insurance
can pay for it if they have the insurance policy.

Assignment of week 5

CONCLUSION
Trot case does not deal foreseeable risk but rather it deals for intentional breach of
contract. If businesses should be responsible for all harm suffered by their customers as
part of doing business then it is very difficult to run any kind of business in this
competitive age over rivalry because if this is the provision then every rivalry try to harm
competitors or try to ruin their business by dramatically way so I am not with judge
Andrew.
A defendant in a negligence lawsuit may raise several defenses to the imposition of
liability which are disused as follows: Superseding or Intervening Event: - Persons are liable only for foreseeable
events.
Assumption of Risk: - If the plaintiff had knowledge of the specific risk, then the
law recognizes that the plaintiff assumed, or took on, the risk involved.
Comparative Negligence: - Many states have replaced the doctrine of
contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence. Under this
doctrine, damages are apportioned to fault.
So, I totally agree with Judge Cardozo who wrote the majority opinion, finding that it
was not foreseeable for Mrs. Palsgraf and not totally agree with Judge Andrews because I
believe that businesses should only be responsible for foreseeable risks of harm. The
same way businesses should not be responsible for all the harm suffered by their
customers during the course of doing action. Negligence can happen from both the sides
and it needs to be determined before coming to a solution.

Assignment of week 5

REFERENCES
Cheeseman, H. R. (2006). Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law. Upper Saddle
River,New Jersey: PEARSON Prentice Hall.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-711
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unintentional torts
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/contract.html

Assignment of week 5