More on PalsgrafMESSAGE FROM ASSOC. PROF. PAMELA S. EVERS, ATTORNEY AT LAWThis article has been offered by web posting to UNCW students for educational purposes only. Articles posted may have been edited for clarity and format by Pamela S. Evers. More on PalsgrafJune 26, 2009, 8:45 am Posted by Cathleen Kaveny http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3308 In my recent column, I discussed Palsgraf v. Long Island RR, one of the most famous tort law cases in the United States. I got a very interesting email from William Manz, a law professor at St. John’s, which I post below. The way law and life interact is fascinating–I’m going to buy his book!I read with interest your column in Commonweal which mentioned the Palsgraf case. A few years ago, LexisNexis published my book, The Palsgraf Case: Courts, Law & Society in 1920s New York, which treats the case as a historical event and includes the backgrounds of all thirteenjudges who heard the case. Cardozo’s apparent indifference to the situation of Mrs. Palsgraf stands in interesting contrast tothat of the trial judge, Burt Jay Humphrey, who denied the railroad’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, stating that the decision was a “close call,” but that he would let the verdict stand. Humphrey, the son of an upstate New York farmer, was widelyregarded as a kindly person, and it’s highly probable that sympathy for Mrs. Palsgraf played a part in his decision. However, overall there was no general correlation between a judge’s background and his position on the Palsgraf case. For example, Judge O’Brien who sided with Judge Andrews had spent much of his career with the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office, whose duties included defending the City against negligence suits. In contrast, Justice Andrews of the Appellate Division, who sided with the LIRR, came from New Rochelle, a community which had once lost many of its residents in a major train crash caused by a railroad’s negligence.Finally, while researching the book, I contacted a retired attorney who had once been chief counsel for the Long Island Railroad., who provided useful insights on the practices of the LIRR’s legal department (e.g., if there was any settlement offer made to Mrs. Palsgraf, it would have been minuscule). He was certain that the railroad would never have attempted to collect the costs awarded to it by Cardozo’s decision.William H. ManzSt. John’s University School of LawQueens, NYVol. 16 No. 10 (October, 2006) pp.836-838 THE PALSGRAF CASE: COURTS, LAW, AND SOCIETY IN 1920S NEW YORK, by William H. Manz. Conklin, NY: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2005. 206pp. Paperbound. $30.00. ISBN: 1820563722. Reviewed by Charles McCardell, Attorney/Law Librarian, West Chester, PA. Email: chasm1 [at]comcast.net. William H. Manz holds degrees in law [J.D., St. John’s University School of Law] and library science [M.L.S., Long Island University] and, as of the publication date, holds the position of Senior Research Librarian, St. John’s University School of Law. As a law school librarian, Manzhas doubtlessly heard a multitude of students struggling over the facts, issues, holding, and rationale in the 1928 PALSGRAF case. Manz admits that PALSGRAF has been scrutinized for decades by academics with the latest tort doctrine to espouse. He quickly points to the major questions he proposes to address in the Introduction: the “apparently bizarre fact pattern;” the “misleading impressions regarding the contending parties;” the “lives and careers of the members of the bench and bar involved with the case;” and, finally, the “participants within the context of their times.” It is our good fortune that Manz became sufficiently obsessed with PALSGRAF to the point of writing this extremely interesting “Brandeis brief” of the case! It should be noted that Manz regularly rides the Long Island Rail Road . . . one can only presume more alert and cautious thanks to Mrs. Palsgraf’s experience almost 80 years ago. Remember the case? In Chapter 2, “The Parties,” Manz introduces the plaintiff and defendant. For those attorneys having a senior moment and those non-attorneys blessed with never having to struggle through Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo’s opinion, what follows is a brief condensation of Manz’s portrait of the plaintiff and her experience.Mrs. Lena Palsgraf [nee Spilger] was separated from her “dead-beat” husband, living on approximately $10.50 per week [about 45% of a fair standard of living in 1920s Brooklyn], whenshe decided to take her two daughters, Elizabeth [15 years old] and Lillian [12 years old] to Rockaway Beach for a Sunday outing. Two or three men attempted to board a moving train while Mrs. Palsgraf and family awaited their train. One of the men dropped a package which caused an explosion on the platform causing a “scale” to fall, striking Mrs. Palsgraf on the arm, hip, and thigh. Although Mrs. Palsgraf and her daughters had been able to walk to the BMT elevated near their home and travelto the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) station where the injury occurred, Mrs. Palsgraf foundwalking difficult after being struck by the scale. She took a taxi home after the police and an ambulance doctor assisted her. A “railroad doctor” visited Mrs. Palsgraf the day after the accident. [a former employee interviewed by Manz suggested that the doctor was probably a “claims agent,” because the LIRRwas too “parsimonious” to employ a [*837] physician!] Presumably an unacceptable settlement offer or none at all was forthcoming. A neighborhood doctor treated Mrs. Palsgraf for a “nervouscondition” over the next two months. With no settlement from the LIRR and unable to continue earning her meager wages, Mrs. Palsgraf sought legal advice regarding suing the LIRR. Chapter 3 introduces the attorneys for both parties. Complaints about the explosion of lawyers and the differences between graduates of full-time day law schools and those lawyers who attended part-time night schools was noted in a 1921 “major report” (p.13). Dean of the Columbia Law School in 1922, Harlan F. Stone, decried the “increasing numbers of men of mediocre” skill in the profession and stressed the duty of law schools to “dissuade the man of ordinary ability” from starting the study of law (p.13). Some argued that college preparation should be required since many candidates knew
View Full Document
Unlocking...