Palsgraf Proximate Cause

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) is the most famous proximate cause case in American tort law. It established the principle that a defendant owes a duty of care only to foreseeable plaintiffs — those within the zone of danger created by the defendant's negligent act. The case produced two competing opinions that continue to frame proximate cause analysis.

The facts are memorable: a railroad guard helped a passenger board a moving train, causing the passenger to drop a package containing fireworks. The fireworks exploded, and the shock knocked over scales at the other end of the platform, injuring Mrs. Palsgraf. She sued the railroad.

Chief Judge Cardozo wrote the majority opinion holding that the railroad owed no duty to Mrs. Palsgraf because the harm to her was not a foreseeable consequence of the guard's negligent conduct toward the passenger with the package. Under the Cardozo view, duty (and therefore liability) is limited to foreseeable plaintiffs. "The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed."

Judge Andrews dissented, arguing that duty is owed to the world at large, and the proper question is whether the plaintiff's injury was a natural and continuous sequence — a proximate consequence — of the defendant's negligent act. Under the Andrews view, once negligence is established, the question is simply one of proximate cause: was the harm too remote or attenuated?

The Cardozo approach (foreseeability of the plaintiff) has been more widely adopted, but the Andrews approach (foreseeability of the harm as a matter of proximate cause) also has adherents. Many jurisdictions apply elements of both frameworks. The key insight for students is that Palsgraf frames two different ways to limit the scope of liability: through the duty element (Cardozo) or through proximate cause (Andrews).

On torts exams, Palsgraf-style fact patterns test whether students can identify the analytical framework for proximate cause and apply it to attenuated chains of causation.