Let's Get Started! This lesson teaches you how to write the eight parts of a case brief using Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., one of the most famous tort cases in American law.
Case briefs are for your notes. Try to use your own words, rather than copying and pasting from the opinion. Focus on understanding the key concepts. Case briefs are meant to help you remember what matters most about each case and how different cases connect to each other.
Part 1: Case Name and Citation
The first of eight parts of a case brief is the citation. A proper legal citation tells readers exactly where to find the case. Let's break it down into parts:
Note on citations: The website shows "Cite Title as: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co.," which is nearly correct, except for the missing period after v.
✓
Formatting tip: While you may not be able to italicize or underline your answer in this text box, case names are always italicized or underlined, followed by a regular (non-italicized or non-underlined) comma.
The case name should include both parties. You can write it as: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad or any reasonable abbreviation for this exercise. Don't worry too much about perfect formatting—just make sure both party names are there!
✓
The citation shows that the case is on page 339 of volume 248 of the New York Reporter.
✓
Because the New York court is clear from the N.Y. reporter, the parenthetical should include only the year, followed by a period.
Important: The Court of Appeals of New York is actually the highest court in the state. In most states, the highest court is called the supreme court, but the structure in New York differs. When citing the highest state court in a regional reporter, we use the state abbreviation plus the year in the parenthetical. But here, the court is already clear because of the N.Y. reporter —so no abbreviation is needed.
Model Answer—Case Citation:
Palsgraf v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928).
Note: Any reasonable abbreviation of the party names are acceptable in this exercise, though "Long Is. R.R. Co." is the technically correct Bluebook form.
Your Answer:
1. Case name:
2. Volume and page:
3. Court and year:
Model Answer:
1. Case name:
Palsgraf v. Long Is. R.R. Co.,
2. Volume and page:
248 N.Y. 339
3. Court and year, followed by a period:
(1928).
Part 2: Procedural History
This part traces the case's path through the court system. What happened at each level?
✓
Start with the original lawsuit. The plaintiff's name starts with P and the cause of action relates to careless behavior.
✓
Did Palsgraf win or lose at the trial level?
✓
Consider this language about the final order: "The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed . . . ." Work backwards to find the procedural history. If the Railroad wins this final appeal and that requires reversal of both the trial and appeals court, then Palsgraf won at the trial and appeals courts.
Model Answer—Procedural History:
Palsgraf (P) sued the Railroad (RR) for negligence. The trial court ruled in Palsgraf's favor. The appellate court affirmed. The RR appealed again.
Your Answer:
1. Who sued whom:
2. Trial court outcome:
3. Appellate rulings:
Model Answer:
1. Who sued whom:
Palsgraf (P) sued the Railroad (RR) for negligence.
2. Trial court outcome:
The trial court ruled in Palsgraf's favor.
3. Appellate rulings:
The appellate court affirmed. The RR appealed again.
Note: Some law students like to use abbreviations like P for plaintiff and D for defendant (or here, RR for Railroad). This helps keep you keep the parties straight and your case briefs concise.
Part 3: Issue
The issue is the legal question the court must answer. Fill in the blanks to complete the issue statement:
Was the
explosion a ,
and if so, can the Defendant be held liable for
when a Plaintiff is injured by
events?
Judge Cardozo describes this type of risk as one not "reasonably to be perceived." The dissent also uses this term beginning in un-.
Model Answer—Issue:
Was the fireworks explosion a tort, and if so, can the Defendant be held liable for negligence when a Plaintiff is injured by unforeseeable events?
Note: The case uses the outdated spelling "unforseeable," instead of the common spelling "unforeseeable." Both are accepted here.
Part 4: Facts
Summarize only the legally relevant facts—those facts that if changed, the case's outcome would change too. Use complete but concise sentences to tie the factual story together.
✓
✓
✓
Your Answer:
1. Where was Palsgraf?
2. What happened as two men were running?
3. Did injury result? How so?
Model Answer:
1. Where was Palsgraf?
Palsgraf was waiting on a railroad platform to catch a train.
2. What happened as two men were running?
One man carrying a package of fireworks was helped by guards but dropped the package, which exploded.
3. Did injury result? How so?
Yes. The explosion caused scales at the other end of the platform to fall and strike Palsgraf.
Model Answer—Facts:
While Palsgraf was standing on a railroad platform, two men ran to catch a departing train. Railroad employees helped one man board. In the process, he dropped a package he was holding that contained fireworks. It exploded, and the shock caused scales at the far end of the platform to fall and strike Palsgraf, injuring her.
Part 5: Rule
State the legal rule or principle the court applies to resolve the issue. Choose the correct rule:
Model Answer—Rule:
B. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves a legally protected interest: the violation of a right.
Stated differently, this rule limits when negligence claims can succeed. There must be a violation of a legally protected right, not just any injury.
Part 6: Reasoning
The reasoning is the court's explanation for how it reaches the answer, or the holding. Fill in the key legal phrases from the court's reasoning:
The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the to be obeyed . . . . One who seeks redress at law does not make out a cause of action by showing without more that there has been to his person. If the harm was not , he must show that the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be protected . . . . If there is no to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be recovered . . . .
Note: Case briefs are for your own notes, so describing the reasoning in the way that makes the most sense to you is always a good practice.
Model Answer—Reasoning:
A duty exists only for reasonably foreseeable risks. An injury alone is not enough to establish a valid legal claim. When harm is not intentional, the conduct must have posed a danger so apparent that it creates a duty of care. Without a legal wrong, there can't be any damages.
Summary Comparison:
Your Summary:
Model Answer—Reasoning:
A duty exists only for reasonably foreseeable risks. An injury alone is not enough to establish a valid legal claim. When harm is not intentional, the conduct must have posed a danger so apparent that it creates a duty of care. Without a legal wrong, there can't be any damages.
That means the Railroad isn't liable because the guards couldn't have foreseen that helping a passenger board would injure someone at the other end of the platform. Without apparent danger to Palsgraf, the Railroad owed her no duty of care.
Part 7: Holding
State the court's answer to the legal question. This is the rule applied to the specific facts in this case.
Did the railroad owe a duty to Palsgraf? Why or why not?
Was there a foreseeable risk of harm?
Model Answer—Holding:
The Railroad is not liable for Palsgraf's injuries because the employees' conduct did not create a foreseeable risk of harm to her.
Your Answer:
Model Answer:
The Railroad is not liable for Palsgraf's injuries because the employees' conduct did not create a foreseeable risk of harm to her.
Part 8: Order
This is the outcome, or the court's instruction of what happens next procedurally.
Model Answer—Order:
Reversed, complaint dismissed.
Your Answer:
Model Answer:
Reversed, complaint dismissed.
Note: Specifically, the court said: "The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts."
