Class 2 Answers
Answers for Questions for Class 2
1. In the Palsgraph v Long Island Case, who do you think would be liable?
Most obvious and direct: the person carrying the explosive package. Possibly
the vendor and / or manufacturer of the fireworks who let this maniac carry
them in a public place in a manner in which they could explode.
2. Why didn’t the plaintiff sue that person?
As far as the package guy is concerned, he probably doesn’t have any money.
He is using public transit carrying fireworks wrapped in newspaper. It is a lot
more like the railway company has money.
3. Is the Palsgraph case finally resolved on traditional tort law principles?
This is one of the most traditional cases. It finds no fault based on no
foreseeability. The dissent shows us the temptation of consideration only the
unfortunate plaintiff who is victimized by the incident. Staying true to tort law, if
there is no foreseeable harm, there is no duty owed by the defendant to the
4. What is meant by the statement: “ the question of liability is always anterior
to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability”?
This means that you have to ask and answer the questions or determine the