Michigan Law Review Volume 52 Issue 1 1953 Palsgraf Revisited William L. Prosser University of California, Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation William L. Prosser, Palsgraf Revisited, 52 MICH. L. REV. 1 (1953). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol52/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 52 NOVEMBER, 1953 No. I PALSGRAF REVISITED* William L. Prossert ERHAPS the most celebrated of all tort cases is Palsgraf v. Long PIsland Railroad Company.1 Certainly it is one of the most contro versial. Thirteen judges in all passed upon the case, and seven of them were for the plaintiff, at least in the sense that they considered that the issue was one to be left to the jury. Four of the remaining six, sitting on the Court of Appeals of New York, had the :final word, and they set aside the verdict, dismissed the complaint, and ordered judgment for the defendant.2 The Advisers of the Restatement of Torts debated the question long and vigorously and approved the case by a narrowly divided vote. Subsequent decisions, even when they cite Palsgraf, have remained in a state of disagreement and confusion, and the problem presented cannot be said by any means to be settled and disposed of.