THE PALSGRAF CASE

Vol. 16 No. 10 (October, 2006) pp.836-838

THE PALSGRAF CASE: COURTS, LAW, AND SOCIETY IN 1920S NEW YORK, by William H. Manz. Conklin, NY: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2005. 206pp. Paperbound. $30.00. ISBN: 1820563722.

Reviewed by Charles McCardell, Attorney/Law Librarian, West Chester, PA. Email: chasm1 [at] comcast.net.

William H. Manz holds degrees in law [J.D., St. John’s University School of Law] and library science [M.L.S., Long Island University] and, as of the publication date, holds the position of Senior Research Librarian, St. John’s University School of Law. As a law school librarian, Manz has doubtlessly heard a multitude of students struggling over the facts, issues, holding, and rationale in the 1928 PALSGRAF case. Manz admits that PALSGRAF has been scrutinized for decades by academics with the latest tort doctrine to espouse. He quickly points to the major questions he proposes to address in the Introduction: the “apparently bizarre fact pattern;” the “misleading impressions regarding the contending parties;” the “lives and careers of the members of the bench and bar involved with the case;” and, finally, the “participants within the context of their times.” It is our good fortune that Manz became sufficiently obsessed with PALSGRAF to the point of writing this extremely interesting “Brandeis brief” of the case! It should be noted that Manz regularly rides the Long Island Rail Road . . . one can only presume more alert and cautious thanks to Mrs. Palsgraf’s experience almost 80 years ago.

Remember the case? In Chapter 2, “The Parties,” Manz introduces the plaintiff and defendant. For those attorneys having a senior moment and those non-attorneys blessed with never having to struggle through Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo’s opinion, what follows is a brief condensation of Manz’s portrait of the plaintiff and her experience.

Mrs. Lena Palsgraf [nee Spilger] was separated from her “dead-beat” husband, living on approximately $10.50 per week [about 45% of a fair standard of living in 1920s Brooklyn], when she decided to take her two daughters, Elizabeth [15 years old] and Lillian [12 years old] to Rockaway Beach for a Sunday outing.

Two or three men attempted to board a moving train while Mrs. Palsgraf and family awaited their train. One of the men dropped a package which caused an explosion on the platform causing a “scale” to fall, striking Mrs. Palsgraf on the arm, hip, and thigh. Although Mrs. Palsgraf and her daughters had been able to walk to the BMT elevated near their home and travel to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) station where the injury occurred, Mrs. Palsgraf found walking difficult after being struck by the scale. She took a taxi home after the police and an ambulance doctor assisted her.

A “railroad doctor” visited Mrs. Palsgraf the day after the accident. [a former employee interviewed by Manz suggested that the doctor was probably a “claims agent,” because the LIRR was too “parsimonious” to employ a [*837] physician!] Presumably an unacceptable settlement offer or none at all was forthcoming. A neighborhood doctor treated Mrs. Palsgraf for a “nervous condition” over the next two months. With no settlement from the LIRR and unable to continue earning her meager wages, Mrs. Palsgraf sought legal advice regarding suing the LIRR.

Chapter 3 introduces the attorneys for both parties. Complaints about the explosion of lawyers and the differences between graduates of full-time day law schools and those lawyers who attended part-time night schools was noted in a 1921 “major report” (p.13). Dean of the Columbia Law School in 1922, Harlan F. Stone, decried the “increasing numbers of men of mediocre” skill in the profession and stressed the duty of law schools to “dissuade the man of ordinary ability” from starting the study of law (p.13). Some argued that college preparation should be required since many candidates knew little of “literature, history, and American traditions” (p.14). Critics of the times contended that the practice of “ambulance chasing” was the result of an oversupply of new lawyers with “immigrant backgrounds, Catholics, and Jews” (p.15). The almost 50 pages of 814 detailed “Endnotes” for the eleven chapters following the 123 pages of text reflect the diligence and research of the author.

After describing the individual attorneys for each party, Manz moves on to “The Lawsuit” [Chapter 4], “The Trial” [Chapter 5], “The Appellate Division” [Chapter 6], “The First Appeal” [Chapter 7], “The Court of Appeals” [Chapter 8], “The Second Appeal” [Chapter 9], “The Case Reconsidered” [Chapter 10], and, finally, an “Epilogue” [Chapter 11].

Two opinions are reproduced in the Appendices: A) Issued December 9, 1927 by Justice Albert H.F. Seeger for the Appellate Division, and B} Issued May 29, 1928 by Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo for the New York Court of Appeals. A detailed index completes the book.

Manz has captured the times, the legal issues, the history and the players in this tortuous drama, and he tells the reader about the historical development of the courts in which this drama unfolds. For instance, we learn that the New York Court of Appeals, which was nationally renown, was created by the 1846 state constitution following 62 years as the “Court of Supreme Judicature and Correction of Errors” after it had been modeled on the English House of Lords in 1784 (p.71). We learn that the court suffered a poor reputation a decade earlier from criticism by social progressives over the IVES v. SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY decision in 1911 (p.71).

The contingency fee system was continually under fire from critics (p.29). Palsgraf’s lawyer, Matthew W. Wood, working on a contingency arrangement, filed a complaint demanding $50,000, the usual amount in “negligence actions against common carriers” (p.30). The LIRR’s attorney, Joseph Keany, denied all allegations in Palsgraf’s complaint, but LIRR held a reputation as a defendant with less than clean hands. Just prior to Mrs. Palsgraf’s incident [*838] several people had been injured or killed by what appeared to be negligence on the part of the railroad’s management (pp.7-11). Delay of justice caused by congested courts was another problem for litigants (p.32).

Manz leads the reader through the various stages of the case with personal and legal details enriching the experience.

THE PALSGRAF CASE might suit several academic uses. Historians of the American legal system, students of the 1920s in New York, railroad buffs and scholars looking for a “case analysis” model will find the book quite interesting. Political science and journalism students seeking additional readings for a class project will find the breadth of Manz’s reporting impressive.

CASE REFERENCES:

PALSGRAF v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CO., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y.1928).

IVES v. SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY, 94 N.E. 431 (N.Y. 1911).

*************************************************