Reference no: EM133855302

Question

The passenger breached this duty by bringing unstable/dangerous explosives onto a crowded platform, failing to properly secure the package, not warning others about the dangerous contents, and potentially mishandling the package during the attempted boarding. If it weren't for the passenger bringing dangerous explosives onto the platform, the explosion would not have occurred. The passenger's actions were a direct link in the chain of events. The explosion and resulting injuries were a foreseeable consequence of bringing poorly secured explosives into a crowded public space. Unlike the railroad's actions (which Judge Cardozo found too remote), the passenger's negligence directly created the risk that materialized. Unlike the railroad employees who couldn't reasonably foresee that helping a passenger board would lead to an explosion affecting someone at the other end of the platform, the passenger with fireworks should have foreseen that mishandling explosives could cause injuries to those nearby (including Mrs. Palsgraf, who was within the zone of danger created by bringing explosives into the station). This defendant's actions have a much more explicit connection to Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries than the railroad employees' actions did. They would likely satisfy Judge Cardozo's concerns about duty extending only to foreseeable plaintiffs within the danger zone.