Andrews a, the dissenting judge in the case of Palsgraf, argues that the actions of a person should be related to what happens in the vicinity of that person’s actions and the time it takes for the effect of that action to be realized.
This means that the judge saw that the actions of the guard were related to what happened to the plaintiff despite the fact that the guard did not anticipate any injuries. This is contrary to what we expect from any person. Any person ought to be responsible for his or her actions but one should be held legally responsible if s/he anticipated some injuries to occur because of his actions. Therefore, Judge Andrews was not right to argue that the railroad company was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. This is the reason why the truck driver and his insurance company are held responsible for what happens in the case of Lynch v. Fischer (Steenson, 2009).
These are just excerpts of essays for you to view. Please click on Order Now for custom essays, research papers, term papers, thesis, dissertations, case studies and book reports.