Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co./archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 [1].

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a case you may not have heard of if you are not an American lawyer. If you have, and you hear the name of this case, very likely you will respond with "the package exploded" or "the scales hit her" or similar, because it did and they did and this is a case you remember. I've tried to be sensitive to recent commentary on the case and give due attention to the people of Palsgraf.Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

What an odd case! From a modern perspective, the fact that no-one seems to have cared much about the guy who actually brought live explosives to a busy rail station seems very strange. A few comments:

In the intro, "assail" seems like too violent a word (although maybe it's normal in legal commentary).
"But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, apparently containing fireworks." Sentence seems to have got mangled in editing. The "apparently containing fireworks" should be earlier in the sentence, and presumably it fell and exploded.
"She testified to trembling for several days, and then the stammering started." As written, it sounds like the stammering started after the testifying.
"The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he would end his life on the U.S. Supreme Court, the second Jew to serve there." "End his life there" sounds like he committed suicide there. "he would serve on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death" would be clearer. "The second Jew to serve there" is a dangling modifier (in general, I find the article's repeated mentions of the ethnic background of the judges odd, since it doesn't seem relevant to the case, but I guess it's no less relevant than the rest of their biographical history).

I felt Cardozo's Judaism was relevant and so mentioned it, I did not mention it in the case of Lazansky.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has cut it. I'm not putting it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Though some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not, sometimes feeling that foreseeability was a jury question." This feels like legalese that may not be clear to lay readers - it's not clear to me what a "jury question" means here.

Hope these are useful. Smurrayinchester 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've dealt with those. I agree it is an odd case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smurrayinchester, do you feel able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in case it wasn't clear, support. Smurrayinchester 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for that, and for returning.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Seal_of_the_New_York_Court_of_Appeals.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Support subject to quibbles. A most interesting and informative account, and not just for lawyers. I have, as ever, a few minor points relating to style and presentation, and for many of these it's a question of personal preference.

Lead

The semicolon in line 1 of para 2 looks to me to be at a natural sentence-end, and should therefore be replaced with (what we Brits call) a full stop.
In the same para I feel that the penultimate sentence (beginning "Cardozo wrote...") might benefit from a split.

Facts

Some of the detail appears at first sight to be rather trivial and irrelevant. e.g. "on a warm summer's day"; Helen Palsgraf's exact address (why do we need to know this?): "having paid the necessary fare" – this presumably to establish that she was a bona fide customer of the railway but the casual reader might not pick this up. Later in the article we are told the office addresses of the respective lawyers Wood and Keany (the latter of whom is a purely nominal figure in the case) – again, why do we need to know where they had their offices? I also think that the information regarding Palsgraf's separation from her tinsmith husband would be better placed when you first introduce her into the narrative, rather than tagged on to the end of this paragraph.

It's to emphasize the point made by Noonan and his school, that Palsgraf has been dealt with by the legal community without regard to the human beings involved. Although Palsgraf comes on as fascinating to each new year of law students, it rests on a mudsill of very real human tragedy to Mrs. Palsgraf. Keany is purely nominal, but he is listed as counsel for the LIRR in the court's opinion, and I felt I had to treat him briefly even though he apparently did not personally appear. Such things are usual in the law, I tried cases for years against the County Attorney's office but never in court against the County Attorney himself, who was always listed as counsel of record. The warm day is needed as it is a possible reason the train was running with doors open, and also there is a legend that the day was very hot, which it wasn't. As for the paying for the ticket, Cardozo mentions it and he's pared down the statement of facts to the essentials (possibly not even that) so like any good lawyer, I cite precedent.

Trial

"...the Gerhardts also sued the railroad, with Wood as their counsel": since you mention this, it might be worth adding a brief note summarising the outcome of this action.

The source doesn't say but I doubt they had much luck. The 'decision in Palsgraf would have defeated their case. Any injury to Mrs. Gerhardt would be even more remote than the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf.

Perhaps clarify that Judge Posner's opinion is not contemporary with the case, but was expressed much later. I also wonder what particular status he had/has, which makes his comment particularly significant?

He is prominent enough that most lawyers would be on a "heard of him" basis, and I see this article primarily aimed at lawyers and law students. Who else would've heard of Palsgraf? And there's a link. I've made it clear he's later.

Initial appeal

The first para begins: "The case was then heard before the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, for the Second Department..."; the second paragraph begins: "The case was argued before the Appellate Division in Brooklyn on October 21, 1927." Are these two sentences describing the same process, or two different stages of the process? If the former, I suggest you move the date to the earlier sentence and perhaps ditch the second sentence altogether. Otherwise, a little more clarification of a two-stage process is needed.

"Heard" is a fairly broad term in the law, equivalent to "considered". I've rephrased

In the second paragraph the information that the court affirmed the lower court's verdict appears at the beginnong and at the end. The second mention is redundant.

Cardozo's majority opinion

Who is "Professor Walter O. Weyrauch"?

Holding and discussion

I find this heading a little cryptic. I assume that the word "holding" is legalspeak for the establishment of some point in law, as in "It was held that...", but the term is a strange one to us non-lawyers and I wonder if it could be phrased more demotically.

Otherwise, congratulations on a fascinating article. I'll add a sources review later, unless someone else gets in first. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support. I've made those changes or at least played with it, except as noted.

Support. A quite fascinating read. Just a couple of comments I hope you can clarify:

"The judge told the all-male jury that if the LIRR employees "did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do in regard to passengers moving upon their trains, then there can be no liability. " I understand this is a quotation but it seems to me—unless I'm missing something—that the judge said the opposite of what he meant to say. Logically shouldn't it be "if the LIRR employees did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees shouldn't do ... there can be no liability. " Or "if the LIRR employees did everything which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do ... there can be no liability. " If I'm correct, maybe it's okay for you to cut this first sentence, because the next sentence clearly spells out the case of where there would be liability.

I went back and looked at the trial record, and that's what he's recorded as saying. Your cut seems very sensible and I've made it.

"The plaintiff's brief also suggested that the failure of the railroad to call as witnesses the employees who had aided the man should resolve any inferences of negligence against it." My understanding of the first part of this is that the railroad should have called as witness the two train employees—and if the railroad was so confident of its employees' lack of liability, there would be no problem calling them as witnesses; hence, the fact that the railroad didn't does not reflect well on its presumed lack of liability. If so, why does the "failure [to do so] ... resolve any inferences of negligence against it"? Wouldn't it be the opposite, i.e., it increases inferences of negligence against it? Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes terms mean one thing to lawyers, another to everyone else, and I guess this is one of them on "resolve". Changed to "decide"; you are of course correct in our interpretation. The LIRR was apparently not even willing to invest the cost of the day's wages for two employees in the case. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

~~isbn for Herzog?~~
~~Location for Noonan?~~
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations, as I checked out the "violations" its flagging, and they are all quotations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've added those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

This is a very nice article and I commend Wehwalt's excellent work with this. Palsgraf is an incredibly important case and it certainly deserves a top-quality article on Wikipedia. I will offer a few more comments over the weekend, but I have a few preliminary recommendations:

It would be nice to include a discussion about the case's impact on other areas of tort law, such as claims for emotional distress for people within the zone of danger, products liability, and strict liability (i.e. for inherently dangerous activities). I can help identify law review articles that discuss these topics if you like.

Certainly, if you like. It's not something I would want to go too deep into.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that "some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not . . . ." Prosser and Posner seem to suggest that at least some states followed Justice Andrews' approach. Do you know if any other jurisdictions still follow Justice Andrew's view? It might be helpful to give a few examples of states that have adopted Justice Andrews' framework.

The Little article you link below has an excellent discussion of Wisconsin's approach based on Andrews. I've added something about that.

Have any subsequent New York Court of Appeals opinions attempted to distinguish or limit Palsgraf? If the answer is "yes," then you should probably mention this as well.

I don't have Shepard's, but according to the articles I added, Palsgraf was still good in New York as of a few years ago. Google didn't turn up anything on that. I've added that the new Restatement takes a different approach.

It might be helpful to include a background section that provides a general overview of the basic principles of tort law that were adjudicated in this case. For example, you may want to explain that tort liability for personal injuries (usually) only exists when the tortfeasor owes a duty to the injured party.

A good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something there.

For commentary on Prosser's assessment of Palsgraf, see Joseph W. Little, Palsgraf Revisited (Again), 6 Pierce L. Rev. 75 (2007).

That article is very helpful on a number of the matters you mention. I may not get to this until after the weekend, by the way, so don't take any inaction as my plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for your excellent work. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I'll do some research and comment again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the point on Palsgraf's extension into other areas, where I will wait for your recommendations, I've done those things.

Thanks for your prompt follow up, Wehwalt. After further consideration, I think that tangential discussions about Palsgraf's extension to other areas of tort law would be too far outside the scope of this encyclopedia article, and this article already provides a comprehensive overview of this case (it need not explore every possible area of academic inquiry). Because this article meets all the Featured Article Criteria, I now officially support its promotion to FA status. I have a few remaining (very minor) editorial suggestions, but they are all stylistic and are not relevant to the FA Criteria:

In the second paragraph of the lead, you begin with "Helen Palsgraf was taking ...." I recommend introducing Mrs. Palsgraf to the readers by saying something like "The case arose when Helen Palsgraf, the plaintiff, took her children ...." or "The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was taking ...."
In the final paragraph of the lead, you write: "Cardozo's conception, that there needed to be a duty of care toward the plaintiff a breach of which caused the injury sued for ...." Perhaps you can simplify the sentence by saying something like this: "Cardozo's conception, that tort liability only occurs when a defendant breaches a duty of care that they owe to a plaintiff ...."
In the "trial" subsection, you refer to Matthew W. Wood as "Attorney Wood." I would remove the "attorney" before his name.
At the beginning of the "Initial appeal" section, you should say that LIRR filed the appeal (some readers may think that Palsgraf appealed to get more money).
I would recommend removing the assertion that "William Andrews is only remembered today because he wrote an opinion in Palsgraf ...." It is probably fair to say he is best known for his dissent in this case, but he made other important contributions, for which he is remembered (see this biography published by the Historical Society of the New York Courts).
In the "prominence" section, you capitalize "Tentative Draft." Should this be lowercase?

On the others, I've gone ahead and taken your suggestions. On this, though, I"m inclined to leave it as is. We call Bohlen the Reporter for the Restatement, and the capitalization seemed needed there, so we may as well be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a missing "title" parameter in the citation template for the Little article.

I commend your excellent work on this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a most thoughtful review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another law case made interesting. Only minor:

Background

"that state's case law a followed a classical formation for negligence", - looks like one "a" too many.

Not a law person, that's all I found. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, understood. I've made that correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.