Strait Talk

This entry is dedicated to Mrs. Palsgraf, injured on the train station platform by a fallen scale (a giant scale). And how did the scale fall? (I am not talking about the scale of justice which did not fall on Mrs. Palsgraf but the giant train scale used to measure cargo loads) The scale fell as a result of an explosion, from a package that fell from the arms of a known anarchist as he tried, with the help of a train company employee, to jump on the back of a moving train that was departing from the station.

Question 1: But for the action of the anarchist (A) would the bomb have exploded?

In all probability no. And if it did, would it have been an accident and not through this seemingly reckless act? Could A be held responsible for simply being in public with an explosive divise? Can any amount of damages caused by the device be pulled in under his umbrella of responsibility?

Question 2: Was the result, the pain to poor Mrs. Palsgraf reasonably foreseeable? Was there anywhere in A's imagination as he prepared for his day that the scale would fall in such a way? I can't imagine how he could have foreseen exactly such a censuses, but could he have imagined that SOMETHING might have happened as a result of his prior actions?

Question 3: Intervening Cause: how much time or space, or distance must intervene before A is no longer responsible. Without asking about the responsibility of the Train Company personal or the possibility of negligence in the scale falling over, is it simply to remote of a consequense for A to be held responsible. We would have a different answer if he had say thrown the explosive divise onto the platform from moving train with the intent to harm people or property. In this era, we would see this as a terrorist act and would interpret his actions in that light. However here we do not interpret it in that light. This whole train of though has just occured to me (no pun intented)

I quote from the majority opinion:

"Negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong imports the violation of a right, in this case, we are told, the right to be protected against interference with one's bodily security. But bodily security is protected, not against all forms of interference or aggression, but only against some"

At what point to we as people have a protected right to be free of fear from terror? How far does the actual results of a terrorist attack strech so that at the outer layers, the harm is not physical but in the nature of an offense, an offense to our sense of security. If Palsgraf happened today at an airport, would there have been a different result. If so, how much has our thinking about justice been effected by the notion of terrorism? Could it be that it has become a reference bubble, a relational element to our thinking, that permiates the entirety of our culture? Is this its, terrorisms, desired effect as a weapon? To threaten us while at the same time hiding from us?

Interesting vein. I might have to dig further...