<Tr> <Th> Dissent </Th> <Td> Andrews, joined by Crane, O'Brien </Td> </Tr> <P> Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff . The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United States Supreme Court justice . </P> <P> The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was taking her daughters to the beach in August 1924 . As two men attempted to board a train before hers, one (aided by railroad employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin - operated scale on the platform to hit her . After the incident, she began to stammer, and subsequently sued the railroad, arguing that its employees had been negligent while assisting the man, and that she had been harmed by the neglect . In May 1927 she obtained a jury verdict of $6,000, which the railroad appealed . Palsgraf gained a 3--2 decision in the Appellate Division, and the railroad appealed again . Cardozo wrote for a 4--3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package . The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case . </P> <P> A number of factors, including the bizarre facts and Cardozo's outstanding reputation, made the case prominent in the legal profession, and it remains so, taught to most if not all American law students in torts class . Cardozo's conception, that tort liability only occurs when a defendant breaches a duty of care the defendant owes to a plaintiff, causing the injury sued for, has been widely accepted in American law . In dealing with proximate cause, many states have taken the approach championed by the Court of Appeals' dissenter in Palsgraf, Judge William S. Andrews . Some legal scholars in recent years have criticized Cardozo for not taking into account Palsgraf's impoverished circumstances . </P>

The long island railroad won the case because the harm to ms. palsgraf was not