Tort Law

Torts are a fundamental area of law and a memorable part of first-year legal studies. The basic rule of tort law, that an individual who suffers damages from another’s actions is entitled to compensation, is often said to have emerged from a late medieval English case, The Case of Thorns (Hulle v. Orange, 1466). Another English case, Byrne v. Boadle (1863), is still frequently scrutinized in American law classes. Other classic cases have also relied on English precedents, for example, Vosburg v. Putney (1891), and Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928), included below. These cases have provided generations of American law students with material for studying liability for damages and have contributed to discussions on issues such as proximate cause.

Case of Thorns (1466) 
The Case of Thorns (Hulle v. Orynge) is the first known case where a common law court applied the foundational principle of tort law, ruling that an individual who suffers damages from the actions of another (even if those actions were lawful) is entitled to compensation. 

Byrne v. Boadle (1863)
Byrne v. Boadle is commonly cited as an early and important precedent for the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Under res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), a plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by showing that the harm that occurred is of a type that would not ordinarily occur without negligence, that the instrument that caused the harm was under the defendant’s exclusive control, and that no other plausible explanation for the harm exists. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, first applied outside the railroad industry in Byrne v. Boadle, remains an important common law doctrine to this day. 

Vosburg v. Putney (1891)
Vosburg v. Putney stands for the common law “eggshell skull” rule. Under this doctrine, someone who injures another person is liable for all damages resulting from their tortious act, even if the victim suffers disproportionately due to an unusual susceptibility to injury or disease.

Martin v. Herzog (1920)
Martin v. Herzog stands for the rule that violation of a statutory duty is negligence in itself. Such negligence imposes strict liability upon someone who violates a statutory duty when that violation results in the type of harm to another that the statute was intended to prevent.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)  
Judge Cardozo’s majority opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. established the rule that there is no liability for harm to an unforeseeable plaintiff.