Yeah, bitch, you heard me right. Fuck you. Fuck your daughter Elizabeth. Fuck your poor reflexes that couldn’t get your large ass out of the way when the scales came tumbling your way.
Well guess what? The scales of justice didn’t tumble your way either but thanks to your litigious mindset, I had to spend 3 hours reading and rereading 12 pages of the most insane legalese ever to grace God’s green tort book.
You couldn’t have sued the guy who brought the fireworks to begin with? Would that have been too fucking difficult? What in the hell did the railroad have to do with anything? God damnit woman, would you make it easy on us and be logical about your lawsuits!
And fuck you Cordozo! You thought I’d forget about you, hiding back there in the corner. What? You think you’re so high and mighty there with your black robe on playing God to the men and women who come before you? Well comb your hair, sit the fuck down and listen to me. Your shit ain’t smelling like roses here. YOU MAKE NO SENSE! NONE!
“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed and risk imports relation. It is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.”
That’s the 20th time I’ve read that and I still can’t tell if you wrote the opinion in Swahili.
You wanna see Proximate Cause? Bend over. Your assholes going flying across the room is proximately caused by my insertion of scales and fireworks up your rectum.
Ah, torts. This is an interesting thread, since most of the people who read it won’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Come on, Ender, you know the answer to this–the railroad had the big bucks. Deep pockets attract lawsuits like dog shit attracts flies–I mean, who the hell would sue youif they spilled your hot coffee on themselves?
Enderw,
I got called on during this (and Wagon Mound, which was not only incomprehensible, but not even American, as some kind of evil causation theme) So I feel your pain.
My torts prof in law school told us some details about the Palsgraf case that didn’t make it into the opinion. I suspect this is an urban legend that the prof swallowed, but here it is:
After seeing the explosion, Mrs. Palsgraf got her daughter to look away for a few seconds. The daughter heard a thump, followed by her mother’s pained moans. Nobody actually saw the scales hit Mrs P.
The prof’s implication: Mrs. P pulled the scales down on herself when no one was looking, intentionally causing her own injuries in order to set up a nice juicy lawsuit.
Personally, I don’t believe it. But wouldn’t it just be poetic if the most famous case in the history of tort law was a big scam?
Count me in as having no clue what’s going on. Still, I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that this was a case that’s used in law school as an example of…something or other?
Ah, yes, how I remember the lovely Mrs. Palsgraf and her encounter with the scales. Simply add a Torts professor with the personality of Ben Stein on downers and you have my first year down perfectly!
By the time you get to such shining gems of property law as Pierson v. Post, the Rule Against Perpetuities, and shifting vs. springing executory interests you’ll wish Palsgraf was all you had to deal with.
Welcome to the Beast. But don’t worry, it gets better from here.
After careful analysis, I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t care if he spells his name Cardozo, he’s still a wanker.
and yeah, amarinth, what the hell we learning about those Brits for anyway? Isn’t that why we fought the revolution?
My only sollace is that they used reasoning from the Polemis case and still couldn’t get the decision right.
And a belated fuck you to Andrews for not agreeing with Cardozo and giving me 4 and a half more pages to read. I mean…my god! Your opinion has no legal binding authority and it’s LONGER than the official opinion! I’m surprised Palsgraf could squeeze her ass into the courtroom with your ego taking up that much room.
My compliments to Kellogg for not only having the decency to shut up and agree, but for also making some damn fine breakfast cereals.
The basic problem with the Palsgraf Case, known to those of the profession who are beyond caring as “Helen v. Railroad,” is that the case is simply incomprehensible. Cardozo, J., carries on for page after page in what appears to be standard, albeit somewhat stilted, English. The opinion scans nicely but when you try to read it you quickly find that it just doesn’t compute. Forget the case, go read the Restatement, Section 281.
My personal opinion is that the decision is the pay off on a bet. Cardozo lost a bet that Coolidge would run for president. The loser was required to draft and file a decision that made no sense but reached a sustainable conclusion and used up a least 20 pages of type script. The joke was that the decision had to be such that generations of law students and teachers would drive themselves barking mad trying to conjure an iota of rational analysis out of this pile of unadulterated balderdash.
Remember, even Leonardo did an occasional bad painting.